rTm ^^TfT ?rre^'t sr^n^R
L.B.S. National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE
5?cI^T^JT
LIBRARY
Accession No._
Class No.
Book No.
520 - 37 ^
i.txynj'a^XiW
ONE THOUSAND AMERICANS
BOOKS BY GEORGE SELDES
You Can’t Print That.. .Payson & Clark .1929
Can These Things Be ...Brewer 6* Warren.. .1931
World Panorama. Little, Brown if Co.. 1933
The Vatican: Yesterday—
Today—^Tomorrow. ..Harper if Bros .1934
(Catholic Book Club
choice)
Iron, Blood and Profits.
.Harper if Bros...
..1934
Sawdust Caesar.
.Harper if Bros,..
..1935
Freedom of the Press...
.Bobbs Merrill...
..1935
Lords of the Press.
.Messner .
..1938
You Can't Do That....
.Modern Age....
..1938
The Catholic Crisis....
.Messner .
..1940
Witch Hunt.
.Modern Age....
..1940
The Facts Are.
.In Fact .
..1942
Fascism.
.In Fact ..
..1943
1000 Americans.
.Boni if Gaer -
..1947
ONE THOUSAND
AMERICANS
BONI & GAER . NEW YORK
All rights reserved. This hook, or parts
thereof, may not he reproduced in
any form without permission in writ-
ing from the publisher.
Fifth Printing
COPYRIGHT 1947
BY GEORGE SELDES
PUBLISHED BY BONI & GAER, IN
133 WEST 44TH STREET
NEW YORK, N. Y.
PKINTSD IN THS UNITSD STATES OT AMBRTCA
To Helen Larkin Seldes
my wife and unrewarded assistant in the writing of
twelve books
^‘Man defends himself as much as he can against truth, as
a child does against a medicine, as the man of the Platonic
cave does against the light. He does not willingly follow his
path, for he has to be dragged along backward. The natural
liking for the false has several causes: the inheritance of
prejudices, which produces an unconscious habit, a slavery;
the predominance of the imagination over the reason,
which affects the understanding; the predominance of the
passions over the conscience, which depraves the heart; the
predominance of the will over the intelligence, which
vitiates the character. A lively, disinterested, persistent lik¬
ing for truth is extraordinarily rare. Action and faith
enslave thought, both of them in order not to be troubled
or inconvenienced by reflection, criticism and doubt.*'—
The Private Journal of Henri Frederic Amiel,
CONTENTS
PART ONE
BIG POWERS
PAGE
1. Enemies of America.1
2. Power. Press and Politics.14
3. J. P. Morgan Stops the St. Lawrence River.25
4. NAM-to-Press-to-Congress.38
PART TWO
BIG MAGAZINES
5. The Magazine Press.57
6. The Morgan House and Magazines.67
7. Morgan Empire and Luce Empire.72
8. The Morgan Empire: Press Relations.81
9. The Seven Big Monthly Magazines.91
10. The Seven Big Weeklies.110
PART THREE
BIG BUSINESS
11. Big Business in the War .. . 139
12. duPont, Hoover and Hitler. 152
13. The Top of the Pyramid.166
14. Who Buys the Elections?.176
PART FOUR
BIG REACTION
15. Big Money Men.193
16. Big Money Organizations.208
17. The General Welfare in the Atomic Age.230
vii
Vlll
CONTENTS
APPENDICES
PAGE
1. The 13 Most Powerful Families in America . . . .251
2. The 12 super rulers of American industry.252
3. The power of the Big Eight banks.254
4. Forty-five corporations with more than $1,000,000,000 in
assets.. . . 256
5. Noted names on the Morgan '‘preferred list” .... 258
6. J. P. Morgan Sc Co. and the St. Lawrence Seaway . . . 259
7. J. P. Morgan Sc Co. and public power.260
8. The Page Cable.263
9. President Wilson on causes of wars.265
10. America’s worst newspapers.266
11. DuPont influence on the American press.266
12. The newspaper press controls the majority of radio
stations.269
13. Curtis Publishing Co. finances.270
14. Time ownership.270
15. The press in chains.271
16. Control of the NAM.273
17. Industrial espionage. 274
18. NAM press relations.276
19. The NAM.278
20. The first fascist plot to seize the U.S. Government . . . 287
21. The fascist plot offi( ially confirmed.290
22. The big subsidizers of American reaction and fascism . . 292
23. The suppressed U.S. War Department's expose of fascism . 299
PART ONE
BIG POWERS
CHAPTER 1
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
“Whenever there is a conflict between human rights
and property rights, human rights must prevail.“
—Lincoln.
One thousand Americans, testified liberal Republican Senator
George D. Aiken of Vermont, stood in the way of a vast na¬
tional undertaking which would benefit ten or twenty millions
of their fellow citizens. These thousand Americans are inter¬
ested in property rights, rather than the general welfare.
In the debate in the Senate which followed, the corporate
interests which seem to be more powerful than the public itself,
were named. But the American people never heard anything
at all about this because our country is the only one which has
a really free press, and the press exercised its freedom in this
instance, as in most instances where the Lincolnian conflict is
present, to suppress the news.
On another occasion, the Senate’s Monopoly Investigation
Committee reported that the 200 largest nonfinancial corpora¬
tions control the economy of the United States, and in subse¬
quent reports, from 1940 to 1947, the growth of monopoly—
the enemy of free enterprise—was thoroughly exposed and its
danger to the nation emphasized. But again the public heard
little about this because perhaps 49,500,000 copies of the daily
press issue of 50,000,000 did not contain the news.
Our Department of Justice, harassed by powerful interests,
hamstrung by the Budget Bureau which reduces its funds to a
minimum, was nevertheless able to bring indictments against
the eight largest banking houses of the country, the men who
1
2
1000 AMERICANS
monopolize the mortgage business, the men who control hous¬
ing, and who, to insure profits, insist on the continuation of
slums in big cities. The sacred name of J. P. Morgan & Com¬
pany appeared in the government’s case to the Federal
Grand Jury, and that of other great rivals, but nothing was
done to arouse public protest, nor was it noted that the same
names which were prominent in the Aiken debate in the
Senate, and which had already appeared in the various monop¬
oly reports, again led all the rest in the finance and mortgage
anti-trust cases.
It is common knowledge that there are powerful forces in
Washington which influence the laws of the nation. They are
known as lobbies. In 1946 the Congress, not for the first time,
took action against this form of invisible government, and in
1947 hundreds of lobbyists registered and began filing quar¬
terly reports on their moneys and their activities, all of which
regularly appeared in the Congressional Record,
It is not common knowledge—because this happens to be
one of the most flagrant cases of total press suppression—that
the most important and incidentally the most sensational of the
scores of reports and monographs of the Monopoly Investiga¬
tion was one which stated that the really powerful lobby was
that of the National Association of Manufacturers, which also
happens to exercise considerable influence over the press of the
nation. It claimed 16,000 members in 1947, but a previous
investigation by the La Follette Committee had shown that
it is actually controlled by 207 corporations, and that more
powerful than even this small number is a group of 12 which
meets secretly and directs its policies.
Of the 12, the majority would not be new names to those
who had the lists of Senator Aiken’s One Thousand Americans.
Nor would any one name be a new addition when the list
was published of the few men—leaders of the National Associa¬
tion of Manufacturers and a newspaper publisher—who sup¬
plied almost all of the $53,700 fund which was used in South
Dakota in 1942, and following elections, to send to the Senate
and the House of Representatives four men who would support
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
3
the measures which corporation heads, their associates and their
lobbies, originated or sponsored. Fifteen million American
members of labor unions were endangered in both their stand¬
ards of living and in their rights as human beings by the Case
Bill (which President Truman vetoed), originated by one of the
men elected by this fund.
The few among the thousand Americans also control the
cartel firms which through their dealings with the Nazis sabo¬
taged to a substantial extent their own country’s defense prep¬
arations, and later its war production program.
Former Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold, ex¬
plaining how the patent monopolies robbed every citizen, also
charged that a few small but dominant groups “plunged us into
a depression with an irreducible minimum of 9,000,000 unem¬
ployed, want in the midst of plenty, idle capital and idle labor.”
Mr. Arnold named no “dominant” group names. But it is now
obvious that the thinking of the people of the United States,
their health and wealth, their work or lack of work, in short
their general welfare, depend largely upon a dominant few
whose actions are kept secret, whose names few have ever heard,
whom they may suspect in a vague way, but of whose enmity,
powers and activities they have no proof.
The same names, all of which will be disclosed in succeed¬
ing chapters, appear again and again in various Congressional
reports, in the official exposes of the American Liberty League
and its fascist, anti-Semitic and labor-hating affiliates, in
the Washington lobbies, in the public utility scandals, in the
Pecora banking investigation, in the cartel scandals of the
Second World War, in the list of financial angels of the Com¬
mittee for Constitutional Government, which was branded
America’s No. 1 fascist organization by several members of
Congress, and the newest of the big business organizations fos¬
tering nationwide reaction under the glorious title of “free
enterprise,” the American Action Committee.
When all the evidence is in, the reader will be able to
judge for himself whether there are just one thousand Ameri¬
cans, fewer or more, who block not only the development of
4
1000 AMERICANS
the St. Lawrence Waterway but the progress of the United
States of America and the inhabitants thereof.
The Euripidean stricture will be obeyed: the facts will
speak for themselves, and a part of the vast documentation
which is available will be presented. The first fact of all, how¬
ever, is the fact that while the documentation is available it has
not been presented to the public because the press and other
avenues of communication are in the hands of the thousand
Americans and nothing of such a nature is generally disclosed.
The facts speak for themselves all right, but frequently in a
vacuum, or in the Congressional Record, or via three or four
liberal weeklies, or through the pages of books which have a
sale of, say, 2,000 copies, so that altogether only a small minor¬
ity of the people is aware of the monopolization of not only all
the major industries, but of public thinking and public opin¬
ion, the forces which might create a better America if they
were free of these controls.
As late as a decade ago, the Scripps-Howard papers, the
most powerful chain in America (New York World-Telegram,
Cleveland Press, Rocky Mountain News, Pittsburgh Press,
Washington News, Cincinnati Post, etc.) still served the public
welfare instead of the corporate interests. When the Federal
Trade Commission published its findings these newspapers did
likewise. The findings were simply that the light and power
industry used a fund of between 125,000,000 and $30,000,000 a
year to change the economic thinking of the people of America,
that this was done by bribery and corruption, and that the
recipients of this fund were largely the editors, owners and
publishers of the newspapers of the nation.
There are 73 volumes, one of them an index, which docu¬
ment the foregoing statement. In view of such overwhelming
evidence the newspapers, their owners .and their spokesman.
Editor & Publisher, today admit that in years gone by the press
was corrupt. They will in fact admit that the press was corrupt
at any time in the past, but they will never admit it is corrupt
today. Nevertheless it is also a fact that during and after the
Second World War the liberal administration of Franklin
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
5
Delano Roosevelt conducted several investigations which pro¬
duced indisputable evidence of a more sensational and more
important nature than did the utility trust investigation, and
the American press, this time not openly bribed or corrupted
by a $25,000,000 annual slush fund, again cut, buried and sup¬
pressed the news, and when possible spread in its columns a
little whitewash for the corporations which had betrayed the
best interests of the nation.
This time the Howard papers joined all the other press
chains in the conspiracy of silence.
But the masthead of his nineteen papers still carried
‘Tusty’* Scripps* noble inscription: “Give Light and the People
Will Find Their Own Way.’*
The most important investigation ever undertaken by the
United States Government was that into the concentration of
economic power. Its findings have appeared in 37 volumes and
43 special monographs, all of them available to the press and
to the public (from the Superintendent of Documents, Wash¬
ington) and many of them containing that light which creates
public opinion, which makes people act.
Between that light and the public, however, there is today
a black wall (less penetrable than any “iron curtain” of a
foreign nation), and it is composed almost entirely of the maga¬
zine and newspaper press. The reason that almost no news
contained in these 80 volumes of enlightenment reached the
public is obvious from the few disclosures of their contents
which follow.
To begin with. President Roosevelt, in his message to Con¬
gress asking for the Monopoly Investigation, made an amazing
statement which showed that he for one was aware of the
ultimate danger of the concentration of wealth and economic
power in the hands of the few—perhaps even less than one
thousand Americans. Said Roosevelt:
“To the Congress of the United States:
“Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths
about the liberty of a democratic people.
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe
6 1000 AMERICANS
if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where
it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its
essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by
a group, or by any other controlling private power. . . .
“Among us today a concentration of private power without
equal in history is growing.
“This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effec¬
tiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment
for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable
distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation
as a whole.“
The President also stated that ‘‘government can deal and
should deal with blindly selfish men” but he thought that the
real menace to the country came from “men who are not selfish
and who are good citizens, but who cannot see the social and
economic consequences of their actions in a modern econom¬
ically interdependent community.” The investigation showed
quite clearly that the blindly selfish men were not good citizens;
but they knew what they were going after.
The President concluded that “once it is realized that
business monopoly in America paralyzes the system of free
enterprise on which it is grafted,” action by the government
would be welcomed by business as well as by workers. He was
mistaken.
In 1942, in his Introduction to the final report, Mr. Roose¬
velt again stated that “the power of the few to manage the
economic life of the nation must be diffused among the many
or be transferred to the public and its democratically responsi¬
ble government,” but in 1946 when David Lynch wrote an
analysis of the investigation, “The Concentration of Economic
Power,” and economist Boris Shiskin reviewed it in The
Nation, both agreed that this study was in the nature of an
obituary of one of the greatest failures in modem history.
No other document ever published by the American Gov¬
ernment has ever named the ruling families and the ruling
forces of the country. The thousand Americans who block the
nation’s progress are not only included, they are for once shown
up in all their ramifications and networks. There is no suppres¬
sion of facts. The economists complain that the investigation
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
7
“never attempted to find out what concentration was” and did
not probe the question “whether concentration is inevitable,
beneficial and desirable,” and that “little attention was given
to its effect upon economic, social and political life” of the
nation, nevertheless the findings remain, in this writer’s opin¬
ion, one of the most powerful indictments in our history, and
it is only because of the suppression of the facts—so far as the
newspaper and magazine reading and radio listening public is
concerned—that no positive and heartening results have come
from it. The people never saw the light. . . .
The Monopoly Investigation was conducted by Senator
O’Mahoney. On his committee there also served numerous con¬
servatives and reactionaries, including Congressmen Hatton W.
Sumners and B. Carroll Reece, who in 1946 became head of
the Republican Party. But neither Republican nor Democratic
newspapers published anything but a few innocuous references
and generalities. The most powerful lobbies which were named
in Monograph 26 never became known to the public; the 13
ruling families analyzed in Monograph 29 (See Appendix 1) are
still a mystery so far as the millions are concerned; and again
it is evident that although the American press is the freest in
the world, the American people are the worst informed among
enlightened nations.
In this instance, suppression was doubly motivated: not
only did the newspapers shield the sources which control them,
the sacred cows, the golden calves, and the raging bulls of
money and power, but they also suppressed the fact that for
once an official document stated that the American press itself
was nothing more than one of the instruments by which the
hidden powers rule the nation.
Monograph 26, a study based on the documentation in
other volumes, begins by stating the issues:
“The American people are confronted with the problem
of who shall control the Government, by what means, and to
what end.
“Since the founding of the Republic, the government
process has been characterized by a struggle for control . . .”
8
1000 AMERICANS
The forces seeking control are named. There can be no
doubt that if a public opinion poll asked millions of persons
which of the pressure groups, the labor unions, the American
Legion, or the National Association of Manufacturers, the farm
lobby, the Methodists, the National Catholic Welfare Confer¬
ence, and all the rest, was the most powerful in controlling the
country, the popular vote would be the American Legion and
the labor unions. But the monograph states:
“From the beginning, business has been intent upon wielding
economic power and, where necessary, political control for its own
purpose. The purpose, moreover, is not solely profit, but includes
the exercise of control per se, as an attribute of ownership.
“Even today, when the purposeful use of government power
for the general welfare is more widely accepted than at any time
in our history, government does not begin to approach the fusion
of power and will characteristic of business. . .
Business is the biggest and most powerful pressure group,
business has political and economic power. The “peak organ¬
izations” of business are named and the men who control the
peak organizations are known.
Although the American Legion is very powerful, perhaps
more so than the GAR which for generations was said to con¬
trol the government, although the farm bloc and the lobby of
the organized unions, representing 15,000,000 voters or more,
do exert great pressure, in the “struggle for dominance” be¬
tween pressure groups, “the largest and most important . . .
is to be found in ‘business’ ... as dominated by the 200 larg¬
est non-financial and 50 largest financial corporations, and the
employer and trade associations into which it and its satellites
are organized.”
After that come all other pressure groups, from the Daugh¬
ters of the American Revolution to the Woman’s Christian
Temperance Union.
At this point in the monograph a footnote states that “in
1935 the 200 largest non-financial corporations controlled over
$60,000,000,000 of physical assets.” The National Association
of Manufacturers, with some 16,000 members, is also said to
represent just $60,000,000,000. Actually, the National Associa-
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
9
tion of Manufacturers includes the 200, with the exception
notably of Ford and only two or three other billionaire firms^
All hidden and open forces which are represented by lob¬
bies and pressure groups not only visit members of Congress
but they employ even more powerful means: they use the
means of public communication “to mold public opinion to
accomplish their aims.” The controversy may be over public
ownership of public utilities, or it may be “regulation and
expansion of social services.” In most instances profits are repre¬
sented on one side, the public welfare on the other. But who
wins?
“Through the press, public opinion, and pressure groups it is
possible to influence the political process. While all three of these
factors have played a part in the process since our beginnings as a
nation, the extent and consciousness of their use has grown in¬
ordinately. They are employed by all contestants in the struggle
for control, but reflect the viewpoint of business more accurately
than that of others. . . . The revolution in communications, pro¬
duced by American ingenuity and promoted by American busi¬
ness, makes the press, the radio, and other opinion-forming in¬
struments far more important in the political process than ever
before. Both press and radio are, after all, ‘big business,' and even
when they possess the highest integrity, they are the prisoners of
their own beliefs, . . .
“The business orientation of the newspaper press is a valu¬
able asset. In the nature of things, public opinion is usually well
disposed toward business. , . . Even where editors and publishers
are men of the highest integrity, they are owners and managers
of big business enterprises, and their papers inevitably reflect, at
least to some extent, their economic interest. When organized
business deliberately propagandizes the country, using newspaper
advertising as one medium, the press is a direct means of channel¬
ing business views into the public mind. . . .
“Chief among the organized groups representing business gen¬
erally is the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The out¬
standing group is the National Association of Manufacturers.”
It is most important to note here the fact, disclosed by the
La Follette Investigation but not publicized, that the United
States Chamber of Commerce was actually one of the many
subsidiaries organized by the National Association of Manu¬
facturers.
10
1000 AMERICANS
The monograph lists other business pressure groups, peak
organizations, almost all of them affiliated with or dominated
by the rulers of the National Association of Manufacturers. It
continues with one of its most significant disclosures:
'Among industry’s satellites, commercial banking presents a
united front to government through the American Bankers Asso¬
ciation, while the Investment Bankers Association of America
functions in the same capacity for investment banking. Although
it includes by no means all the country's lawyers, the American
Bar Association is the part of the legal profession most closely
allied in thought with American business. Through the American
Newspaper Publishers Association the country's daily newspapers
join their strength for business and against government. . . .”
Apparently it is the mention of the ANPA which resulted
in the press, whose leading owners are its officers and members,
suppressing this item. The press is here denounced in an official
document as the agent of business and the press neglected to
report the findings of the Monopoly Investigation.
The monogiaph then takes up in detail the history and
policies of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Asso¬
ciation of Manufacturers, noting first of all the fact that the
latter founded the former.
“Business exerts its influence on industrial relations policy
through the NAM, its members and affiliates, and other sympa¬
thetic organizations. , , .
“Through the National Industrial Council . . . instituted and
dominated by the NAM, employer activity is mobilized and directed
on the political front. . . .
“The American Bar Association has, by framing and pushing
legislative proposals designed to achieve this purpose (opposition
to the Wagner Act), indicated its fundamental community of in¬
terest with business. The American Newspapers Publishers Asso¬
ciation shares a similar community of interest.”
In the First World War, as congressional inquiries im¬
mediately afterwards, and the Nye-Vandenberg and other in¬
vestigations later revealed, the corporate interests held up and
robbed the government and the American people of billions of
dollars. The profits were beyond belief. No less than 23,000
persons became millionaires and multimillionaires out of that
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
II
war. It was determined that this must never happen again. The
American Legion went on record with an official resolution
that the profits must be taken out of war, and that the nation
must conscript business and wealth as well as men—a resolu¬
tion it betrayed in 1941. Bernard M. Baruch issued the slogan
“take the profits out of war” and drew up blueprints for the
mobilization of industry.
However, all these things were forgotten in 1940 when
the defense program went into effect. But from 1940 on, and
to this very day, the standard newspaper press repeats and re¬
peats, until a vast majority believes it, that labor went on
strikes, labor did not do a patriotic job, and that business was
not only patriotic but noble, and that free enterprise saved
the country and the world.
The opposite of course is true.
After recounting the corruption of business in the First
World War, the monograph adds:
“In the 1940 national defense crisis business displayed much
the same attitude that it had done 23 years earlier. Business would
help the Government and the people, but the basis of payment
therefor would have to be fixed before the wheels would begin to
turn. Profits, taxes, loans, and so forth, appeared more important
to business than getting guns, tanks, and airplane motors into
production.”
In fact and in truth, the great sit-down strikes of 1940 and
1941 and even later, was the strike of big business, of the
members of the National Association of Manufacturers and
Chamber of Commerce, against the American people and
against the war effort. If any one group in America betrayed the
rest, it was the big business group. The “treason” of big busi¬
ness in the Second World War, once publicly denounced by
Truman, was never mentioned in the press, no investigations
were ever made of business as a whole, and no books have yet
been written documenting this un-American history.
The monograph concludes:
“Speaking bluntly, the Government and the public are ‘over
a barrel’ when it comes to dealing with business in time of war or
other crisis. Business refuses to work, except on terms which it
12
1000 AMERICANS
dictates. It controls the natural resources, the liquid assets, the
strategic position in the country’s economic structure, and its tech¬
nical equipment and knowledge of processes. The experience of the
World War, now apparently being repeated, indicates that business
will use this control only if it is ‘paid properly.’ In effect, this is
blackmail. . . .
“Business apparently is not unwilling to threaten the very
foundations of government in fixing the terms on which it will
work. It is in such a situation that the question arises: What price
patriotism? ...
“Democracy in America is on the defensive. In the preceding
pages, it has been shown that pressure groups as now operating
usually fail to promote the general welfare.”
The general welfare 1
In this phrase, the TNEC explains many things. It is the
general welfare of the nation which is endangered by the pres¬
sure groups of selfish interests, led by the National Association
of Manufacturers and its affiliates (notably the Chamber of
Commerce) and its satellites (including the newspaper and
magazine publishers’ associations and the bar associations). The
Legion lobbyist speaks for at least three million, the labor
lobbyist speaks for at least 15,000,000, but the National Asso¬
ciation of Manufacturers lobbyist, while speaking for at most
16,000 members, actually speaks for the “Brass Hat” clique of
the 207 who put up the money.
This situation could never exist if America had a really
free press. But the press itself is forced by the financial power
of the organized pressure groups to ally itself on the side of
the enemies of the general welfare of the United States. As
pointed out (in “Lords of the Press,” page 19) in one year the
American press made this great record:
1. Fought all issues where their profits were involved;
2. Led the attack against a real pure food and drug law;
3. Opposed the Wagner Act, the Magna Carta of labor;
4. Urged amendment of proposed social insurance legis¬
lation putting newspapers in a special class;
5. Proposed compulsory arbitration of labor disputes with
the outlawing of strikes.
6. Favored child labor.
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
IS
7. Frowned at the Securities Act.
(It was recalled by the New York Post in one of its house
advertisements in 1946 that in the 1850’s it alone among the
New York newspapers supported the abolitionists. The rest of
the press of the metropolis either was neutral or it supported
human slavery.)
During the Roosevelt regime the nation enjoyed an era
of liberal legislation, it made progress, it went forward. When
Roosevelt died, reaction was re-born.
The result of the 1946 election was regarded by the major¬
ity Mr. Gallup polled as a ‘‘mandate” to destroy the New Deal,
the Wagner Act, and almost all of the reforms of the past
decade. Government controls were to end and an era of
profiteering, robbery and free enterprise was heralded. “The
economic liberty of all of us is being threatened by greed and
profiteering of a few,” said President Murray of the CIO in
his Labor Day address.
The men of the status quo and reaction, Republican and
Democrat, came back to power. But while the status quo men
were content to remain stationary, the men of reaction were
for going backward—and because reaction marches backward,
it will arrive at that same feudalism to which Mussolini himself
gave the name fascism.
The eras of marching forward are few and short. “The
reactionaries are in possession of force, in not only the army
and police, but in the press and schools,” the noted philosopher
John Dewey wrote years ago.
In the following chapters, the reactionaries will be named
and the indictment will be documented, showing how detri¬
mental to the general welfare of the people of the United States
they are.
It will become apparent that in big business, in politics,
in the big press and in the big reactionary movements of our
time there are only a few men, perhaps only a thousand Ameri¬
cans, who with their organizations and their power to maintain
the status quo system or to move backward, stand in the way
of the coming of “the Century of the Common Man.”
CHAPTER 2
POWER, PRESS AND POLITICS
If it should so happen in the 1950’s that a crusading news¬
paper, or a magazine, free from the pressures of the power and
light industry disclosed the fact that atomic energy for civilian
use had been sabotaged for years by a powerful alliance of cor¬
porations, politicians and the press, all interested in a 6%
profit, it would not surprise anyone who throughout the Twen¬
tieth Century watched the sabotage of the universal use of
electric power.
Many years ago great leaders of the pre-atomic world saw
the emancipation of mankind through the use of electric
energy. Health, wealth and a more successful pursuit of happi¬
ness were made possible for not only the citizens of the United
States, but for the two billions who inhabit the whole earth.
Today the scientists predict the end of drudgery by the
harnessing of atomic power. Provided, of course, that free en¬
terprise does not enslave it.
The economic emancipation of the people of the world has
always been opposed l)y the few who could profit from the own¬
ership or control of natural resources and the potentialities of
nature. If atomic energy is delayed it will be because of invest¬
ments, profits, monopoly, and the lust for power by those who
control money, the press and public opinion, the political
rulers of cities and nations.
In this and the next chapter the system of control will be
illustrated in contrasting locales, in one of the least populated
states, and in New York. There will be vast differences, but the
system will be found to be the same; the results will be the
same; the public will always suffer, and the press will always
protect those who profit at the expense of public welfare.
* « «
The small state is Montana, third largest in size in the
14
POWER, PRESS AND POLITICS
15
Union, fortieth in population. The people of Montana are in¬
telligent citizens, and every one in the state knows what is
wrong. Everything that is wrong is summed up in the words
“the Company.” Every person talks about “the Company” if
he talks at all about politics, farming, ranching, mining, electri¬
fication, water power, prosperity or unemployment, and the
press. The State of Montana is dominated by the Anacondai
Copper Mining Company, everyone knows it, a few want it so,,
the majority is opposed to this control, but little is ever done
about it.
The reason the people of Montana cannot do much about
it, the reason an aroused public will frequently fail at the polls,
is that the Company controls substantially all of the press of
the state, and when that instrument is in the control of private
interests it is almost impossible for any program for the benefit
of the majority to assert itself. The Company, the press and
their politicians rule the state and retard its progress.
Whether or not the situation is more vicious than in:
several other states may be a matter of controversy, since inves¬
tigations have shown that similar conditions prevail elsewhere,
but there are two reasons for reporting on Montana: first, the
press-money-politics-anti'general welfare alignment has a cer¬
tain Western frankness about it; it is out in the open, crude,
defiant and challenging; and, second, it has been challenged
by no less a person than the senior Senator of the state, its
foremost citizen, and one of the few statesmen in Washington.
However, the conspiracy of silence against the people is so-
complete in Montana that even Senator Murray was not able
to break through it. Time and again he found that the press of
his state was suppressing him, and so he had to address reprints
of his political statements to the good citizens (notably the
liberals, labor union and Farmers’ Union people) with the
following slip attached:
YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE
The reprint herein of my statement before the Senate Bank¬
ing and Currency Committee dealing with a free press in Montana.
16
1000 AMERICANS
contains incontrovertible facts that every citizen in Montana
should be familiar with. Our State’s future prosperity and growth
depend upon* an informed public. Please read the attached
pamphlet and pass it on to other citizens to read.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Murray, U.S. Senator
The scandalous journalistic situation in Montana has been
exposed time and again for several decades. Villard, Sinclair
and others produced evidence of the control of newspapers of
the state by the copper interests. It has been found that certain
papers are owned outright, others have been bribed, others
have mortgages in the copper company’s banks, others have
their annual deficits paid by the copper kings, and almost with¬
out exception all of them get the “good will” advertising of
Anaconda Copper and Montana Power Company, and express
an editorial good will towards these corporations.
The only Montana papers which have both defied the
Company and supported Murray for Senator are a few free
country weeklies. They also published the Senator’s testimony,
which is one of the most important documents in recent history
exposing the newspaper situation that exists not only in Mon¬
tana but in other states. Senator Murray testified in part:
*‘. . . . Only in a few cities of our State have we an honest
press furnishing news free from propaganda. It is a well known
fact that the Anaconda Copper Mining Company owns a string of
newspapers in Montana. These papers arc published in Helena,
Butte, Anaconda, Missoula, Livingston and Billings. They own and
publish both Democratic and Republican papers, so-called, and
their policy is directed from the headquarters of the Anaconda
Copper Mining Company in New York City.
“In my home city of Butte, for example, the Anaconda Copper
Company owns the morning paper. Democratic, and the evening
paper. Republican, both printed on the same press, and the news
IS censored by the Anaconda Copper Co.
“The news they publish is colored and distorted in such a
fashion as to deceive and confuse the public on important issues.
These papers, because of their affiliation with the Anaconda Cop¬
per Mining Company are subsidized with federal funds—in other
words, the Anaconda Copper Mining Co. is making huge profits
from Government contracts and is able to maintain these papers
at a loss because of the excessive profits they are able to make from
the Government in wartime. . . .
17
POWER, PRESS AND POLITICS
“The company has been engaged in acts of wholesale fraud in
the sale of wire and cable of such a defective nature as to endanger
the lives of our boys on the war fronts. Anaconda itself carries
expensive ads in its own papers which, of course, constitute de¬
ductible items in its income reports. Thus it finances its own
papers with the taxpayers’ money while it opposes Government
ads in the country press.
“The large metropolitan press and magazines of the country
are also subsidized through costly advertising contributed by the
big industrial corporations engaged in war work. The cost of this
advertising is deductible expense—in other words, the money ex¬
pended by these corporations for advertising in their own news¬
papers and in the metropolitan press and magazines is furnished
by the United States Government. In this way the large papers
and magazines of the country are being subsidized by big business,
but the small country papers have been left out in the cold and are
having a difficult time to survive. . . .
“The papers in Butte are owned and controlled for no other
purpose than to control politics in the State of Montana. It started
years ago in the big fight between the copper kings of Montana,
and they have ever since controlled and kept those newspapers
which gave them the power to dominate the State Legislature and
to dominate the Federal elections as well, through suppressing
news of what is going on, and suppressing the issues in the
campaign.
“That is acknowledged in Montana generally. It has been
written up in the newspapers. It has been written up, I believe,
in a number of books that have been issued in this country in
recent times. For instance, George Seldes, in his book, “Freedom
of the Press,’’ has a whole chapter on it in which he discusses that
situation. . . .
“They have carried on that conspiracy now for some years;
and, had it not been for the country press keeping my name before
the people of the State, I would have been defeated in the last
election.
“They (Anaconda and the press it controls) are interested only
in their own properties and the exploitation of the State. They
are holding back the development of the State, and under their
domination, the population of Montana, the third largest state in
the Union, is dwindling. . . . They are compelling Montana ta
exist on the basis of a raw-material economy. They are blocking
the development of our great water resources and preventing the
creation of cheap power which would develop industry and vastly
increase our population. . . .
“The death of the smaller publications would spell the doom
of the free press in America. They have contributed in the past
some of our most fearless and capable journalists and crusaders
1000 AMERICANS
18
of worthy causes. They may be counted upon to make similar con¬
tributions in the future.
“I really am sorry that this situation exists. ... It seems to
me that the free press of America would be doing the country a
great benefit if it would condemn such practices in any part of
the United States, because we should have a press in America that
the people will have confidence in, and they cannot have confi¬
dence in newspapers if they believe that they are widely owned
by corporations and used for their own propaganda purposes."
^ Years ago, Oswald Garrison Villard wrote that the follow¬
ing Montana newspapers were owned by the copper interests:
Montana Standard of Butte, Butte Daily Post, Anaconda Stand’
ard, Heleiia Democrat, Helena Record-Herald, Missoulian,
Missoula Sentinel, Billings Gazette and Livingston Enterprise.
The Postal Laws require an annual statement of owner¬
ship, nevertheless there is evidence that a few publications
conceal their real backers. The advertising of Anaconda and
Montana Power, its colleague in controlling the state, are visi¬
ble to the naked eye, but other controls are invisible to the
inquiring mind.
Among the independent small weeklies, H. E. Bruce’s
People's Voice is indeed a voice crying in a copper-colored
wilderness. In his issue of February 2, 1943, Mr. Bruce’s head¬
line was: "Value to Corporations of Kept Press Shown by Fiscal
Condition." He declared that "the Anaconda Copper Mining
Company is willing and finds it advantageous to pay tremen¬
dous sums to maintain its hold on most of the channels of
public information in the State," and alleged that although
its name does not appear in any of the reports of the corpora¬
tions publishing newspapers "it has never been denied that the
staggering 'debts’ of these publishing houses represent the sub¬
sidies made by the copper company to control them and to
dictate the policies of the daily papers published by them."
Here follow^ the figures of the capital stock and debts of the
majority of Montana’s daily newspapers at this time:
Montana Record Publishing Company; Montana Record
Herald, Helena; Capital stock paid in, $38,945; Existing
debts, $188,376.
POWER, PRESS AND POLITICS 19
Missoulian Publishing Company: Missoulian, Missoula; Cap-
ital stock paid in, $50,200; Existing debts, $47,066.
Independent Publishing Co.: Helena Independent; Capital
paid in, $75,000; Debts, $210,616.
Standard Publishing: Montana Standard, Butte; Capital $100,*
000; Debts, $383,017.
Post Publishing Company: Butte Daily Post; Capital paid in,
$124,500; Debts, $116,251.
It will be noted that several of these papers now heavily in
‘‘debt’" are the very ones listed years ago by Villard as being
owned outright by the copper interests.
The venality of the Montana press was brilliantly illus¬
trated when the Senate Committee investigating war frauds
found that an Anaconda subsidiary was manufacturing defec¬
tive wire which it was selling the War Department for immedi¬
ate use by America’s allies (in 1943) and probably for eventual
use by our own troops. The accusation was made by Senator
Truman and later sustained in the courts.
Brooks local of the National Farmers’ Union, meeting at
Gunnar Mickelsen’s Spear T Ranch in Lewistown, had the
news of the Anaconda scandal—but not from Montana papers.
It passed the following resolution:
*‘As farmers and ranchers of Montana we feel particularly
indignant over the light punishment given the Anaconda Copper
Company which was guilty of cheating the government on war
materials and endangering the lives of American soldiers, includ¬
ing our own sons.”
The copper-controlled press suppressed the news, just as it
has suppressed all news the Company wants suppressed.
To an overwhelming extent the daily Montana press is
anti-labor, anti-farmer, anti-rancher; in other words it is against
the interests of the people of Montana. This was illustrated
again when, following the success of TVA, it was proposed that
the Missouri Valley Authority should be the next big step in
the electrification of the nation. The Missouri, and the real
West, begin in Montana.
The Montana Power Company is opposed to the MVA,
but since Montana Power is linked to Anaconda and between
20
1000 AMERICANS
them control the state’s press and politics, 559,000 persons are
kept from getting something which would benefit every one of
them immeasurably.
As usual, the press is the instrument of the big money, and
it is the press which appears openly as the enemy of the people.
The controlled Montana press lied about TVA, it lied
about MVA, it repeated the lies of the politicians linked to
Anaconda and Montana Power, and succeeded in confusing or
prejudicing so many people that they actually voted against
their own best interests.
The State Farmers* Union tried its best to supply an anti¬
dote for this steady flow of poison. It realized that little could
be done with the daily newspapers, but it was especially angry
that the Associated Press also should lend itself to corporation
propaganda. At a statewide convention the Farmers’ Union
passed the following resolution:
“It is common knowledge in all informed quarters throughout
the nation that the daily newspapers of Montana, with only two
or three exceptions, consistently present a one-sided picture of the
news that affects the welfare of their readers. The chief cause of
this one-sided presentation of the news is the fact that most of the
state’s papers have large outstanding loans made to them by the
corporation and that direct control of the editorial and news poli¬
cies of those papers is under J. H. Dickey of the Anaconda Copper
Mining Co. with offices on the sixth floor of the Hennessey Build¬
ing in Butte.
“There are literally thousands of instances of abuse of the free¬
dom of the press in Montana to prove the bias of the press in favor
of Big Business and against working farmers, working men and
women everywhere and their organizations. However, the treat¬
ment of one current and immensely important news event by the
Montana press will serve to vividly illustrate the charge. This is
the reporting of news concerning the Missouri Valley Authority
(MVA).
“The controlled newspapers of Montana have always protected
the Montana Power Co., which advertises heavily, against unfavor¬
able news When the company went into court against a group of
Montana farmers and claimed ownership of all the water in the
Missouri River, not a word appeared in the press. When the fed¬
eral circuit court decided in favor of the farmers, not a word was
printed. Yet this was one of the most important court decisions in
Montana's entire history.
POWER, PRESS AND POLITICS
21
‘'Similarly now, when a great national movement is underfoot
to develop the Missouri River Valley, give jobs to thousands, in¬
cluding returning veterans, stop floods, create millions of fertile
farm acres and provide cheap electric power to business, farms and
homes, the newspapers of Montana and the Associated Press in
Montana are giving their readers an almost unbelievably false
picture of the whole situation/*
The rest of the resolution accused the Associated Press of
sending out biased reports. The AP replied it was the news¬
papers which altered or suppressed the news it furnished them.
If the AP is right, it makes the case against the press the
stronger.
In politics as well as in the press. Anaconda is all-powerful.
When Sam Ford was elected governor in 1944, first Republican
in 20 years, even Time admitted (November 6) that “the big
business twins that run Montana politics, Montana Power and
Anaconda Copper, were behind . . . Ford.**
The career of the once great liberal politician, ex-Senator
Burton K. Wheeler, is an excellent illustration of Company
politics. There was a time when Wheeler had as his enemies all
the great money powers of Montana and most notably “the
Company.’’ There was also a later time when Mr. Wheeler
went to the Senate with the blessings of the press and Ana¬
conda. The turning point in Wheeler’s career came in 1939
when the presidential bee got under his stetson.
From 1939 to 1946 Wheeler became one of the foremost
orators of reaction in the nation. America First of isolationist
days and the America First Party of Gerald K K. Smith both
approved of him, and one of his anti-Semitic speeches—a de¬
nunciation of the Rothschilds and Sassoons—was reprinted by
the majority of the groups that were named in the Govern¬
ment’s sedition indictments.
In 1946, Wheeler failed for nomination in the Democratic
primary. If he had embraced the GOP at the time he embraced
the NAM the result might have been otherwise. But even with
the support of all the reactionaries, including the copper inter¬
ests and the press, he could not turn the tide of liberalism
which still flowed through the democratic fields of his state.
22 1000 AMERICANS
and he was defeated by a trusted representative of the New
Deal.
Leif Erickson’s platform was openly anti-Company.
‘'Cheap power, protected water rights, use of Montana water
in Montana for irrigation and not downstream for navigation,
full irrigation and resource development in Montana through
valley authorities locally administered,” stated the Democratic
platform, and Montana Power and Anaconda didn’t like it
a bit.
The power company replied by placing advertisements in
the Montana press attacking TVA, MVA and Erickson. The
press scared little business men with threats of the proposed
valley authorities putting them out of business. It alleged that
TVA was engaged in “operating farms, directing operations in
a large area of farmlands, lumbering, experimenting in social¬
ized medicine, operating grocery stores and service stations,
operating drug stores . . . tourist cabins . . . taking over certain
police duties . . . readjusting families, instituting a super gov¬
ernment superior to the state and local authorities.” This left
out almost no one. The ads scared the rancher, the farmer, the
doctor, the groc cr, with their falsehoods which a paid press dis¬
seminated.
Zales Ecton, a t orporation farmer, was called by the Demo¬
crats “the darling of the Anaconda mining interests and the
Montana Power Company.” He had earned the friendship of
business interests by introducing and supporting anti-labor
laws in the state legislature, he had voted against a minimum
wage scale for women, against prohibiting the sale of goods
made by child labor, against a state little Wagner Act, and
similar legislation, all of which indicated he was a friend of
the corporations, an enemy of the welfare of the people. He was
quite naturally endorsed for the Senate by no less an American
than Gerald L. K. Smith!
With the aid of the Anaconda press Ecton resorted to the
usual subterfuge of empty men: he waved the red flag, roared
accusations against the opposition as being befriended by Mos¬
cow, “accused the Truman administration of every sin attrib-
POWER. PRESS AND POLITICS
2S
uted to McKinley” and did his best to keep away from meeting
the one real issue: The Missouri Valley Authority. When he
could not meet it, he redbaited. In his Lewistown speech he
said that “the MVA is as communistic as anything Joe Stalin
has ever thought up.” The small unbribed weekly papers
pointed out that even the most reactionary among the GOP,
as for example, B. Carroll Reece, had endorsed MVA.
When the vote was in so was Ecton. The GOP campaign¬
ers, Federated Press reported to the labor papers, got away with
a tremendous hoax: they cooked up a fraudulent broadcast
from Moscow, in which Erickson was endorsed, and they ped¬
dled a retouched or faked photograph showing Erickson sup¬
posedly buying a copy of the communist newspaper. Daily
Worker, Altogether, the GOP is said to have spent $100,000, or
many times the Democratic fund, in the 1946 election.
The GOP would have gotten nowhere with its fraudulent
broadcast and fraudulent photographs if it had not had a will¬
ing, corrupt and venal press to publish them so that none of the
voters among the 559,000 could possibly escape their effect.
Denials were in vain. The headlines and the press fakery won
out, swamping the solid liberal-labor vote which joined the
Democrats, but was insufficient to withstand falsely created
“public opinion.”
The red-baiting campaign, which was also part of the na¬
tional Republican strategy of 1946, continued in Montana after
the election. On November 15 of that year, Carolina Brammer
reported in People's Voice on her talks with many “good peo¬
ple,” “God-fearing, church-going people, people who would not
knowingly harm another person” and found them all inflamed
for a war against Russia. The controlled Montana press, in its
campaign of falsehood for the purpose of destroying MVA and
electing Ecton, had created such a corrupt atmosphere that only
the lightning of war would clear it—in the minds of these
people.
Montana is an enlightened state. It is something like Ver^
mont in character and natural beauty, although it is ruggedly
liberal whereas Vermont is ruggedly (and honestly) conserva-
24
1000 AMERICANS
tive, although many of its fathers and grandfathers speak many
foreign languages, while Vermont traces itself back to an older
immigration.
Montanans know what is wrong with Montana, but since
they have practically no free daily press with which to fight,
they frequently lose to the corporate interests.
Both Anaconda and Montana Power are no longer owned
by natives. The rulers are in Wall Street. Actually Montana
Power is now part of the American Power fe Light Corporation,
which is now a part of the Morgan Empire (Congressional
Record, November 22, 1944), and Anaconda’s officials are in
New York. Senator Murray years ago referred to Montana as
being exploited as a colonial land, by private firms instead of
armed governments.
The absentee owners also exercise control over the state's
press through two types of good will advertising: Edison Elec¬
tric Institute propaganda telling how cheap current is, how
lucky the people are that private business and not TVAs and
MVAs run this country; and general “free enterprise’’ propa¬
ganda. Here is a fine example (from the Lewistown Democrat-
News, August 22, 1943):
“THE FOimTH ESTATE
“Because of an American press that is free and fearless, that
brooks no Hitlerian control, no state subsidies, Americans are
the best informed people in the world.
“We honor the men and women of the Fourth Estate who have
contributed so much to the social and cultural progress of Mon*
tana communities.’’
This advertisement in the Lewistown daily and in other
papers was paid for by the corporation which is known to every
citizen of the state as ending its free and fearless press, sub¬
sidizing reaction, and blocking the social and cultural progress
of Montana.
CHAPTER 3
J. P. MORGAN STOPS THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
A DEMOCRACY is dedicated to the greatest good for the greatest
number. If the resources of a nation belonged to its people,
economic security, a base for democracy, would be assured.
In the United States the private interests have seized most
of the natural wealth of the country. Up to the time of the dis¬
covery of atomic power, only one source of wealth remained in
public hands, water power.
“Before many years have passed,” Newton D. Baker wrote
to Ernest Greenwood during the Wilson administration (Util¬
ity Corporation Reports), “it will be necessary for us to use
water power wherever possible and conserve coal.
“Our water powers are therefore our great unexhausted
and inexhaustible national assets. Whoever owns them in a
large sense may be said to own the United States, industrially
and commercially. . . .
“If I were greedy for power over my fellowmen, I would
rather control Muscle Shoals than to be continuously elected
President of the United States.”
Today a project which would supply the greatest good for
the greatest number is the St. Lawrence development.
“I know of no single project of this nature more impor¬
tant to this country’s future in peace or war,” declared Presi¬
dent Roosevelt in asking the Congress to approve the St. Law¬
rence Seaway. “Its authorization will demonstrate to the en¬
emies of democracy that, however long the effort, we intend to
outstrip them in the race of production. In the modern world,
that race determines the rise and fall of nations.
“I hope that authorization will not be delayed.” (Special
Message to Congress, June 5, 1941.)
President Coolidge declared for it immediately after he
succeeded Harding (and the Ohio gang).
President Hoover approved the project.
25
26
1000 AMERICANS
President Truman is on record as heir of the Roosevelt
policy.
Republicans and Democrats, the governors A1 Smith, Her¬
bert Lehman and Tom Dewey are on the record for the St.
Lawrence.
The secretaries of state Hughes, Kellogg, Stimson, Hull
and Byrnes, the War and Navy Departments, the chiefs of staff,
have approved the plan, and Canada has frequently asked the
United States to start the work.
In fact, all six presidents who faced the issue, from Wilson
to Truman, ofticially, and it is to be presumed sincerely, de¬
clared in favor of the St. Lawrence, and since the governors of
New York and their alternate numbers in Canada did likewise,
as did the leading citizens of both countries. Supreme Court
Justices, Senators, Representatives, and others, it is pertinent to
ask who Senator Aiken meant when he said one thousand
persons were blocking the project.*
Whether or not the opposition numbers only 1,000, it is
worth while looking into. Some of its members were named
in the full-dress debates on the St. Lawrence in November and
December, 1944, and the mere fact that at least 90% of the
press (probably 99%) suppressed the names of the men and
corporations openly or secretly fighting the St. Lawrence should
have given anyone interested a glimpse into the power these
few possess. All the following were named in this debate by
Senators Aiken, La Follette, Langer and Murray:
1. The Mellon interests. Aluminum Company of America
(Alcoa) and Canadian Aluminum, Ltd., and related firms.
2. The duPonts, the biggest industrial empire in America,
owners of the controlling interest in General Motors.
•The statement was confirmed in a letter dated January 31, 1947, to the
writer. Senator Aiken also sent along the UP report of his statement which says:
“Washington April 21 [1945] (UP)-^en. George D. Aiken, Republican, of Ver¬
mont, charged today that a group of ‘not more than 1,000 people in the whole
country’ is blocking completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
“Senator Aiken, author of a bill to authorize completion of the $200,000,000
waterway and hydroelectric power development, said in an interview that the
‘1,000’ are ‘more interested in seeking profits for themselves than they are in
helping the welfare of 136,000,000 people.’
“He identified the 1,000 as executives and stockholders of private utility
companies which have fought the St. Lawrence project for many years.’’
J. P. MORGAN STOPS THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 27
3. The Duke interests: power and light corporations, to¬
bacco, and Duke University.
4. General Electric Corporation.
5. The railroad lobby, the Association of American Rail¬
roads.
6. J. P. Morgan & Company.
Not named in this debate were the following interests:
1. The coal producers’ lobby and (strangely enough) their
great enemy, John L. Lewis.
2. Frontier Corporation. Senator Aiken charged that in
1921 '‘the Aluminum Company, the General Electric Com¬
pany, and the duPont Company united under the name of the
Frontier Corporation to acquire and develop the power of the
St. Lawrence frontier.*’ When they could not grab it for them¬
selves, they fought government control.
3. Fifty-six Senators, a majority, who voted against the
measure in 1944.
4. The self-styled “free” press.
5. The United States Chamber of Commerce and affil¬
iates.
6. The Chamber of Commerce of New York State.
Here again we have one of the greatest combinations of
money and power in the history of America. We have three of
the powerful interests which had working agreements with the
great Nazi cartel system (Alcoa, duPont, General Electric).
We have also a story of front-page sensation and impor¬
tance. But the reader can search not only the front page but
any page of his daily paper for the first fortnight in December,
1944, and not find any mention of the great forces which were
blocking this necessary development. The best that can be
found in all but one or two newspapers is a reference to “the
public utility lobby” {New York Post, December 13, for exam¬
ple). Such generalities are meaningless. Unless the enemy is
named every time, unless he is exposed, the public cannot
identify him, cannot fight and defeat him.
The documentary evidence is to be found in the Congres¬
sional Record, not in the daily newspapers. There is no space
28
1000 AMERICANS
here to repeat the 100 pages of evidence^ but here are a few
sample paragraphs:
“Senator La Follette: Ever since 1902, first the Aluminum
Co. of America, then the General Electric Co., the duPont Co.,
and later the Niagara Hudson Power Corp., have all been suc¬
cessively interested in acquiring power sites ... for the de¬
velopment of the water power of the St. Lawrence River.”
Senator La Follette described in detail how Colonel
Cooper, who built the Dnieper Dam for the Soviets, planned a
$1,300,000,000 St. Lawrence project for Frontier Corporation,
subsidiary of Niagara-Hudson. But Governor Smith opposed it.
“After Gov. Alfred Smith came Gov. Franklin Roosevelt.
They believed that the good of the people requires the develop¬
ment of river resources of the country for the benefit of all the
people, and they would not relinquish the public heritages for
private profit.
“I shall shortly give proof as to the very devious ways in
which the private power companies have opposed the St. Law¬
rence project. • . , They have conjured all through these years
since 1932 [the New Deal] the most fantastic stratagems to de¬
viate public opinion from the real issue.” One of the ways was
propaganda inserted as news items and editorials in hundreds
of newspapers. It is put out by the Industrial News Review,
“owned, edited and published by an outfit called E. Hofer 8c
Son” of^Salem, Oregon, which was also accused of going “so
far as to sign the names of fictitious persons to fictitious
articles” (CR p. 9167).
Senator La Follette named newspapers deceiving the pub¬
lic by spreading utilities propaganda in the following places:
Ashland, Ky.; Woonsocket, R. L; Davenport, Iowa; Johnstown,
Pa.; Paterson, N. J.; Niagara Falls, N. Y.; Lynn, Mass.; Terre
Haute, Ind.; Waterbury, Conn.; Ottumwa, Iowa; Wheeling,
W. Va.; Lowell, Mass.; Washington, Iowa; Salt Lake City,
Utah; Lima, Ohio; Port Arthur, Tex.; Clinton, Iowa, and
Waterville, Maine.
'‘Senator La Follette: This indirect and devious method of
influencing public opinion is, in my opinion, a violation of edi-
29
J. P. MORGAN STOPS THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
torial trust, and if carried on indiscriminately and unchecked,
it would undermine the very foundations upon which-demo¬
cratic government must rest. • . . The Senate of the Unitecf
States cannot afford to be fooled by these devices.”
Senator La Follette inserted sample propaganda pieces
from the Hofer press bureau, half of whose expenses are paid
by utility corporations. The Hofer bureau boasted that its big
business propaganda aimed:
“To help minimize regulation of industry. . . ,
“To discourage radicalism in all its forms. . . .
“To fight for reasonable taxation. . . .
“Straight-from-the-shoulder arguments against socialistic
propaganda, of whatever nature, because socialism does not
square with our American industrial system and is contrary to
the very foundation principle of our constitutional form of gov¬
ernment.” [By this is meant public ownership of public utilities
—including TVA—one of the greatest American achievements
of the generation.]
The Hofer bureau claimed that 14,000 newspapers accept
its free propaganda—there are fewer papers than that in the
country today—use it without disclosing it is propaganda, and
that in one instance 600 papers used the same item. {Congres¬
sional Record, December 8, 1944, pp. 9164-9170.)
**Senator Aiken: Let us not deceive ourselves. We are deal¬
ing here with some of the most ruthless and powerful economic
interests that have sought to intervene in the concerns of any
government, and to influence its domestic and international
policies.
“We are dealing here with international utility interests
which have succeeded over the past 20 years in trebling water¬
power development in Quebec, where they own and control it,
and in absolutely blocking the development of the latent power
in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River,
where the State of New York and the Province of Ontario have
set up public agencies to develop that power for the public
benefit.
“We are dealing here with an international aluminum
80
1000 AMERICANS
monopoly which has consistently fought the St. Lawrence proj¬
ect, while developing its private power sites in Quebec to en¬
gage in a world-wide cartel which supplied Japan with alum¬
inum prior to Pearl Harbor and gave Germany the lead over
the United States in aluminum capacity and production prior
to our entrance into this war.**
Senator Aiken had already mentioned Aluminum Cor¬
poration. He then told the story of the Shipshaw development.
Senator Aiken: Grants were acquired in 1913-14 by the
James L. Duke interests. . .. The Aluminum Corp. of America
took over the Shipshaw power rights from the Duke-Price Com¬
pany in 1926. In 1926 Alcoa also acquired the upper develop¬
ment, Isle Maligne, by purchase of 522/^% of the stock of the
Duke-Price Co., now known as the Saguenay Power Co. . . .
“Plans made by Alcoa in 1925 comprehended a scheme
to get the Shipshaw project under its control, to speed its de¬
velopment, and to seize upon every device to delay the St. Law¬
rence project.**
Finally, Senator Aiken read the report of the Power
Authority of the State of New York, dated January 31, 1944,
which makes the charge that the Aluminum Company, Ltd.,
and the Alcoa cartel agreement with the Nazis “had the effect
of limiting the production of strategic light metals in the
United States.*' Japan was also served. The Canadian works
were exploited because wages “range as far as 50% below wages
paid in New York, Washington, California and other produc¬
ing areas.** (Congressional Record, December 11, 1944, pp.
9271-9285.)
One of the chief controversies in the Senate concerned the
role of the House of Morgan. Its spokesman, Thomas W. La¬
ment, had denied controlling the light and power industry and
lobbying against the St. Lawrence. (See Appendix 3.) In rebut¬
tal, Senator Langer, on November 30, 1944, introduced the fol¬
lowing statement of the late Senator Norris:
Through interlocking directorships between banks dominated
by Morgan and through the control of the Morgan-founded, Mor¬
gan-operated United Corporation, this banking house within the
31
J. P. MORGAN STOPS THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
past few years has come into a position of absolute dominance in
the power*business . . . the Niagara Hudson Power Corporation . . .
dominates the upstate utility picture in New York . . . United Cor¬
poration also is buying into Electric Bond and Share, which in
the past has been headed by Sidney Z. Mitchell who, with Insull,
dominated the old-time National Electric Light Association
(NELA).
“At the present rate of progress, Morgan will soon control the
industry. That famous banking house is already well on the road
in that direction. The record of the functioning of these various
Morgan-controlled corporations in this new Edison Electric Insti¬
tute will bear watching. ... Of the 22 trustees of the new organiza¬
tion 18 are so closely linked to the Morgan-Carlisle-UTiited Cor¬
poration interests that it would be impossible to have the slightest
independence of action.*’
This statement was followed by the disclosure of Senator
La Toilette’s reply to Mr. Lamont {see Appendix) in which he
declared:
“The entire record supports the conclusion that organiza¬
tions and agencies in which the influence of J. P. Morgan 8c Co.
is notorious have been using every resource to block public
development of St. Lawrence power in the interest of lower
electric rates.”
The claim that no member of the Morgan House opposed
the project was answered by the fact that the chief agency by
which St. Lawrence was being fought was the Chamber of Com¬
merce of the State of New York. J. P. Morgan and 12 partners,
including Lamont, were members of the Chamber at the time
it initiated the campaign, and at the time it financed this cam¬
paign its treasurer was Junius S. Morgan, Jr.
La Follette further charged that the Morgan firm had an
agent named Machold as its New York State lobbyist, and
quoted Republican State Committeeman W. Kingsland Macy
saying;
‘‘It is intolerable that the invisible government set up by
Mr. Machold in Albany during the legislative sessions, . . .
should be permitted to continue.”
Senator La Follette’s reply to Lamont was devastating. It
showed, for the first time, the means by which the Morgan Em¬
pire operated in New York State: its control of the Chamber of
32
1000 AMERICANS
Commerce. Yet not a line about this sensational disclosure ap¬
peared in most of the newspapers of New York, or the rest of
the country. To this day it may be said that not one person in a
hundred knows of this important activity of the Morgan firm.
The mention of the “invisible government” was a chal¬
lenge to the press to break through the iron curtain of corpora¬
tion power and get the news. It made no such effort.
Years earlier, as everyone now admits, the “invisible gov¬
ernment” at Albany resorted to outright bribery and corrup¬
tion to obtain special privileges in New York State. Solicitor
General Henry Epstein wrote in 1943 that in “the Gay Nine¬
ties . . . the power gang greased through the legislature three
grants to the predecessors of the present Niagara Falls Power
Company giving the company in jaerpetuity the right to use all
water available for diversion from the Niagara River.”
What the invisible government is up to now no one can
tell because neither political party is willing to investigate, but
the work of the visible lobby, the press and politician lobby, is
evident to all.
No one could possibly allege that the situation in New
York in any way resembles the situation in Montana, where
Anaconda and Montana Power either own 7 dailies or control
them through loans or through advertising, but a large major¬
ity of the dailies of the Empire State are, through a community
of interest with big business if not through loans and adver¬
tising, just as devoted to the power trust as their colleagues in
the Treasure State.
Take the great New York Times, for example. In 1941,
when the President proposed the St. Lawrence as the greatest
single project to benefit the American people, the Times began
its editorial sabotage. A student of journalism should make a
scientific study of its columns for that year, measure the space
given to the pros and cons, write a thesis for the benefit of
all journalism schools. In the editorial columns he will find
scores of references to policy, among them:
January 10: “The more the case for the St. Lawrence power
J. P. MORGAN STOPS THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 33
and navigation is studied as a defense measure the weaker it
becomes. . .
March 20: “The plain facts are (1) that the St. Lawrence proj¬
ect cannot possibly be of the slightest use to Canada or the United
States in any crisis this year or next year. . . . The President has
chosen an unfortunate method of reviving a favorite project. . .
March 25: “Congress must consider both the difficulties in¬
volved . . . and the alternatives. . . . There can be no question that
the St. Lawrence project captures the imagination. Some day it may
be desirable. . .
June 7: “We are confronted with a vast diversion of man¬
power and materials needed in carrying out the defense pro¬
gram. . . . The more this St. Lawrence project is studied, the
more it is to be hoped that Congress will not be stampeded
into giving the President his way. . .
July 5: “Canada . . . has reserved the right to wait for a more
propitious time. . . .“
July 6: “But the question which arises, so far as power is
concerned, is whether the steam-power plants could not be built
far more speedily, and with less diversion of labor. . . **
September 18: “Can we afford to divert 27,000 skilled and semi¬
skilled men. . . ?“
October 20: “The St. Lawrence is merely one source of power
and by no means the best. Nor is it low-cost power. . . . The argu¬
ment for the erection of steam plants . . . becomes stronger than
ever.”
Not one of these arguments varied an iota from the propa¬
ganda sheets put out by the Edison Electric Institute, the power
and light trust press bureau. This is just one of the millions of
coincidences which make newspaper reading so interesting.
With the smaller newspapers of the state there were other
coincidences. Following are some of the newspapers which,
according to M. C. Steele, FTC investigator, received what is
known in the trade (or profession) as “good will” advertise¬
ments from the Niagara Falls Power Company:
Buffalo Express, $2,787.60
Buffalo Courier and Buffalo Enquirer, $4,438.30
Buffalo News, $6,075.36
Syracuse Herald, $3,299.38
Syracuse Post Standard, $3,286.28
Syracuse Journal, $2,786.28
Syracuse Telegram, $2,221.10
Rochester Times Union, $4,362.11
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, $4,237.32
34
1000 AMERICANS
Rochester Herald, 11,305.18
Rochester Journal, $3,471.10
Hammondsport Herald, $1,305.18
(Senate Document 92, 70th Congress, Report of the Federal
Trade Commission to the U. S. Senate, part 63, page 151.)
John L. Lewis opposed the St. Lawrence for selfish reasons
of another sort. He, the coal and the railroad lobbies, believe
that cheap power for the public will hurt their own businesses.
To bolster his position Lewis, in the United Mine Workers*
Journal, quoted the following newspapers as attacking the
President’s 1941 request to the Congress to start the St. Law¬
rence project immediately:
New York Times, New York Sun, Long Branch (NJ.)
Record, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Philadelphia Bulletin, Spring-
field (Mass.) Union, Shreveport Times,
Columnist Rodney Gilbert (Heptisax) of the New York
Herald Tribune sneered at the President. Roy Howard’s bell¬
wether in the Scripps-Howard chain, the New York World-
Telegram, declared there was '‘a strong opposition based on
souhd argument” (July 15, 1941); the Chicago Tribune de¬
clared, “the scheme, far from promoting America’s military
preparation, will retard it”; the Wall Street Journal also op¬
posed the idea.
The Tulsa Tribune ran a quarter page ad, paid for by the
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, a private utility, based
on the Readers Digest condensation of Friedrich Hayek’s book
“The Road to Serfdom,” a copy of which it had sent to every
home it served throughout the state— Reader*s Digest having
supplied it and other corporations with tens of thousands, if
not millions, of reprints at about cost price. The Tulsa Tri¬
bune ad, besides boosting Hayek and Reader^s Digest, shows a
cartoon with America at the parting of the ways. On the left,
“The Road to Serfdom” which ended at a black place labeled
“Socialism”; also the following smaller roads: “Planned Econ¬
omy,” “Tax Free Cooperatives,” “Authorities” (meaning TVA,
etc.) and “Government Ownership.” The road to the right was
labeled “Proven for 150 years” and ended in a bright place
J. P. MORGAN STOPS THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 35
called “Freedom.** America was represented as a citizen carry¬
ing a bag marked “The Priceless Jewels of Individual Liberty.**
The American press knows every dirty trick in the history
of journalism by which it is able to fool all the people most of
the time, and one of them is to make it appear that propa¬
ganda is straight news. Thus it can, when it wishes, run column
after column of testimony, interviews, public statements. Con¬
gressional reports, all of which are true, factual, documented,
honest perhaps, and all of which aim at one goal: giving only
one side of a controversial argument. This it does in the matter
of the St. Lawrence. For examples:
New York Herald Tribune, November 8, 1945, news item
headed: “St. Lawrence Seaway Plan Held Needless. Lacka¬
wanna Head, Union Leader, Term It Peril to Rail Earnings
and Jobs.**
New York World-Telegram, June 24, 1941, news item
headed: “Seaway Opponents Hold United States May Bear Full
Cost of Plan. See Canada Not Yet Definitely Committed to
Completing Share.**
There are millions of these items.
On the same dirty side of the journalistic picture there is
not only suppression of the news, but there is burial alive. Just
one example will suffice:
On June 18, 1946, Senator Murray of Montana denounced
activities of the power lobby whose light had not been dimmed
by hoary age or its effectiveness sapped. “In the appropriations
bill that we are now studying, that lobby has been and is play¬
ing a big hand.’*
Senator Hill of Alabama, according to the Times, “out¬
lined ‘a widespread, vicious and unprincipled lobbying and
propaganda campaign* against TVA and similar develop¬
ments.’*
A new investigation of the power trust was asked.
The New York Times on June 19 ran about 7 inches of
this big news. It did not suppress the story. That day the Times
had 44 pages. Of all the 44 the least important is page 43, and
it is on that page, sandwiched exactly between a weather map
1000 AMERICANS
36
and the radio listing that this front-page news is actually
buried.
In the 1930’s the power trust propaganda bureau, the
NELA, claimed it had just exactly four-fifths of 80% of the
American press in its control.
In the 1940’s because of the usual advertising and other
controls about the same percentage of the American press came
out for the power interests.
“Administration plans for a preliminary survey of the St.
Lawrence River with a view of its development as a defense
power project are assailed by three-fourths of the commenting
newspapers, chiefly on the ground of expense and because of
the time involved.” Thus wrote David Lawrence (United States
News, November 1, 1940).
In Congress, as in the press, members who were somehow
tied to interests greater than that of the nation found all sorts
of reasons for opposing St. Lawrence, just as many once found
all sorts of reasons for favoring human slavery. An oversight
in a public document nails at least one Senator as a friend of
the power companies.
On the first day of the Irrigation Committee’s hearings in
1945, Senator Murray, speaking for the Missouri Valley
Authority, which would save at least $100,000,000 for the cit¬
izens of that basin, got into an argument with Senator John
Overton of Louisiana. The printed record, page 27, records:
Senator Murray: “Take my state, for example. The power
companies are against it (MVA).”
Senator Overton: “Off the record, more power to them.”
Overton had intended his “Off the record” remark to re¬
main off the record, but the stenographer recorded every word
as spoken and Overton failed to cut it out of the proofs. Over¬
ton’s history of opposing public light and power developments,,
including the St. Lawrence, is public. The foregoing oversight
is confirmation.
In the vote of August II, 1944, twenty-five Senators were
for the Seaway amendment to the Rivers and Harbors Authori¬
zation Bill, but 56 opposed it; again party lines were broken as
J. p. MORGAN STOPS THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 37
they always are on most important legislation affecting the gen¬
eral welfare.
Among the opponents of St. Lawrence were Styles Bridges
of New Hampshire*; Bailey, Byrd and the late Senator Bilbo,
the first two known to have voted in favor of special interests
before, and the third merely a KuKluxer; George of Coca Cola
fame; McKellar, irresponsible enemy of TVA; O’Danicl,
spokesman for the Christian Americans, Fight for Free Enter¬
prise and other native fascist organizations of Texas; Wheeler
of Montana, the renegade liberal; the Chicago Tribune sup¬
ported “Curly’' Brooks; Taft, Wherry, and Hawkes, the former
head of the United States Chamber of Commerce, and leading
Senate spokesman for free enterprise.
Senator Bridges was “Chief Senate spokesman for the
power companies,’’ according to PM, March 21, 1941. Bridges
was accused of trying “to slip a foot in the doorway behind
which lies the whole vast world of atomic power.’’
Fewer than one thousand men block the St. Lawrence de¬
velopment and block the progress of America.
They own the power and light corporations, they maintain
the lobbies in Albany and Washington, they control the press,
they are members of the Senate—and they are united for one
purpose: the greatest profit for the smallest number, instead of
the greatest good for the greatest number, which is American
democracy.
* The Nation, April 12, 1947. Columnist Joseph Alsop linked Bridges to the
power lobby —New York Herald Tribune February 14, 1947.
CHAPTER 4
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
Ir IS IMPOSSIBLE to overestimate the value of Senator Aiken's
public declarations, in the Chamber and on the platform, that a
mere thousand men stand in the way of progress on the St.
Lawrence. It is a fact, as this volume should help prove, that
the same thousand stand in the way of all progress. But, un¬
fortunately, it is also true that the political action which an
enlightened public would take when truth becomes known,
has not been taken, because the old “conspiracy of silence,"
long ago reported and always sneered at by the conspirators
themselves, prevents intelligent counter-action.
The American people do not know their enemies. They
do not know the names, the instruments, the techniques, the
power of the few. They do not know who the electric light and
power interests are although they have been named in Con¬
gress; they do not know the part the House of Morgan still
plays in industry; they do not know the names of the 8 great
banks which control much of America; they do not know the
lobbyists. And so long as they do not know, so long as the
press (abetted by the radio) continues to suppress the news
when the enemies of America are actually named, it will be im¬
possible for a nation of readers and listeners to take action
against them.
It is more than a conspiracy of silence. The press and radio
and other means of mass communication not only suppress the
news, they also serve special privilege in other ways, because in
every major challenge between private gain and public good
the press aids the exponents of the former because of the com¬
munity of interests which now exists.
To illustrate, here are examples of two decades. The 1934
report on the New York Tribune publishers, Whitelaw Reid's
estate, listed stocks and bonds worth $16,210,809, including
power and light. Standard Oil, Mexican investments, banks.
The estate of Joseph Medill Patterson (as reported in the
38
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
39
New York Times of May 17, 1947) listed $10,923,366, includ¬
ing holdings in AT&T, Brown-Foreman Distillers, Chrysler,
General Motors, Standard Oil and duPont.
The respectable New York Herald Tribune and the yellow
New York Daily News, whose policy was deliberately gauged
to the mental age of 12 by Captain Patterson, do not deviate
from the service of big business, the auto makers, the oil cor¬
porations, the duPonts, the NAM, the free enterprise system,
the protection of the status quo and the furtherance of profits
at the expense of the welfare of their own millions of readers.
It is not necessary, however, for the publisher to be a stock¬
holder. He may or may not be indebted to his smalltown
banker but he is always dependent on his advertiser, and the
advertisers today are directed by the public relations depart¬
ments of the great advertising agencies, which also plot the po¬
litical action of big business.
No one has challenged and no one can successfully chal¬
lenge the community of interests of business and the press.
Big business, as a part of the public well knows, is pretty
well represented by the National Association of Manufacturers
and the United States Chamber of Commerce, and its affiliates
in thousands of cities and towns.
The public does not know—because the press has sup¬
pressed the facts—that there is a sort of general staff of billion¬
aire firms which is one of the most powerful if not the most
powerful economic and political force in the United States; nor
does the public know of the 207 firms which actually direct
the NAM, or the fact that the NAM was the chief founder of
the USCofC, or the scandal in 1913 when the NAM was shown
by a congressional investigation to have bribed members of
the House of Representatives and also office boys, or the most
recent scandal when the NAM was accused by forthright mem¬
bers of the House and Senate of writing a bill which was passed
by a great majority in both chambers.
These are the most powerful of the secret rulers of Amer¬
ica, and so long as the press keeps them secret it will be
difficult, if not impossible, to restore in a real sense what the
40 1000 AMERICANS
NAM advertises as "'the American way of life/' or American
democracy.
The super strategy board or general staff of the rulers of
America, the Special Conference Committee, was first named
by the Committee on Education and Labor of which Elbert D.
Thomas, senator from Utah, was chairman, Senator La Follette
chairman of the subcommittee “to investigate violations of the
rights of free speech and assembly and interference with the
right of labor to organize and bargain collectively,” and Robert
Wohlforth secretary. At the time the hearings were held, and
in 1939 when the Committee’s report was published, the press
suppressed the news. In 1947, speaking against the Taft-Hart-
ley bill, aimed to destroy the Wagner Act and all the gains
labor had made under the New Deal, Senator Thomas again
attacked the Special Conference Committee, and again the en¬
tire American press betrayed the American people by complete
suppression of the news. (See 1947 Congressional Record, pp.
4401-4416.)
On both occasions it was shown that the strategy board of
twelve billionaire corporations sets policy, from the employ¬
ment of spies, gangsters, “goons,” strikebreakers, tear gas and
machine guns, to the writing of legislation which comes to Con¬
gress under the names of Representatives and Senators. In 1939
the La Follette-Thomas report showed that members of the
Special Conference Committee and the NAM were the chief
users of force and violence, spies and machine guns, in the fight
against labor; and in 1947 Senator Thomas declared that the
passage of the Taft-Hartley bill would restore a situation which
would again make such usage possible.
Who are the twelve billionaire corporations,’ the super
governing body of American industry—and politics? The Com¬
mittee headed by Senator Thomas listed them as follows:
American Telephone and Telegraph Co.: W. S. Gifford,
president; E. F. Carter, vice-president; E. S. Bloom, president
(Western Electric Co.); W. A. Griffin, assistant vice-president.
Bethlehem Steel Co.: Eugene G. Grace, president; J. M.
Larkin, vice-president.
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
41
E. 1. duPont de Nemours: Lammot duPont, president;
Willis F. Hartington, vice-president; William B. Foster, direc¬
tor of service department.
General Electric Co.: Owen D. Young, former chairman;
W. S. Burrows, vice-president; G. H. Pfeif, supervisor of per¬
sonnel.
General Motors Corp.: Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., president;
John L. Pratt, vice-president; Donaldson Brown, vice-president.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.: E. J. Thomas, general
superintendent.
International Harvester Co.: A. A. Jones, assistant to vice-
president; George J. Kelday, manager of industrial relations.
Irving Trust Co.: Harry E. Ward, president; Northrop
Holbrook, vice-president.
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey: W. S. Parish, chairman;
W. C. Teagle, president.
U. S. Rubber Co.: L. D. Tompkins, vice-president; C. S.
Ching, director of industrial and public relations.
U. S. Steel Corporation, the biggest of the billionaire
Morgan corporations.
Westinghouse Electric 8c Mfg. Co.: A. W. Robertson, chair¬
man; F. A. Merrick, vice-chairman; W. G. Marshall, vice-presi¬
dent; E. S. Clelland, director of personnel.
(Source: Senate Report 6, part 6, 76th Congress, 1st ses¬
sion, pp. 89, 91, 92, 97; also Part 45, p. 16781.)
The general staff of the 12 corporations meets informally
and agrees on a program which is always anti-labor. Since 1935
it has had as its chief objective the destruction of the Wagner
Act, the symbol of the New Deal era, one of the few short pe¬
riods in American history when legislation was enacted con¬
sciously under the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution.
The informal decision is passed on to the directing group
of the NAM, and from there to organizations and corporations
throughout the nation, so that within a few days a great cam¬
paign gets under way, a vast propaganda covers the country,
four or five million dollars worth paid for by the NAM, but ten
42
1000 AMERICANS
or twenty or a hundred times that amount furnished free by
the newspapers, magazines, radio and others who have the same
community of interests.
In almost no time at all at least 90% of the American
press echoes the “party line” of the 12 billionaire corporations,
and the 16,000 members of the NAM.
The Special Conference Committee gives the signal, the
same “sounding of the ‘la’ ” which Mussolini explained he used
for his journalistic orchestra, the press of the entire Italian na¬
tion, and immediately all the hacks in America get to work, and
scores, if not thousands take up the delenda est campaign: the
Wagner Act must be destroyed.
The cartoonists of most newspapers are just plain old-fash¬
ioned newspaper prostitutes. In fact, they are the last of the
bordello era of journalism. The editorial writer may have some¬
thing of a free voice; the columnist could be free—except that
he is aware that sycophancy pays $50,000 a year and iconoclasm
lands one in the poorhouse; but the “artist” is given blunt
orders, and since his medium is graphic he cannot, like the
editorial writer or the columnist, qualify what is to be said
and protect himself. It is the strength and weakness of the car¬
tooning art that it is more incisive, more onesided, more power¬
ful, than the editorial viewpoint it illustrates; and thus it comes
about that the same press which via its editorials and colum¬
nists presents the NAM or Chamber of Commerce line with dis¬
cretion and camouflage, usually presents a cartoon in which
graphic bluntness more often than not makes it a falsehood.
Honest reporting is turned into dishonesty. The editor
sends out a good union reporter to interview Mr. Wilson of
General Electric or Mr. Wilson of General Motors, an honest
report is made, and the honest report is printed. But the editor
will never at the same time publish an honest report of a con¬
trary nature from the head of the electric or automobile union
at either General Electric or General Motors, and in this way
the public is fooled by what appears to be straight uneditorial¬
ized unbiased news. This is one of the oldest tricks in jour¬
nalism.
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
43
The radio acts in exactly the same manner. The public
does not know that Mr. Henry J. Taylor is himself a manu¬
facturer nor that when he talks for General Motors he is talk¬
ing for the main financial backer of the NAM, one of the most
persistent enemies of union labor in the United States. These
are the facts and a strictly honest radio would so announce
them.
The public does not know that Lowell Thomas, as well as
Fulton Lewis, Jr., at one time or another received pay from
the NAM and that neither of them has ever deviated from the
NAM-anti-labor line. It does not know that Lowell Thomas,
who is supposed to give the news straight—a newscaster in con
trast with news commentators—is just as biased and prejudiced
as the latter, that he worked for one of the heads of the NAM,
the Pew family of Sunoco and Sun Shipbuilding, and that his
neat compliments to the Pews (until 1947, when he changed
to Procter 8c Gamble) were a pay-off, as are his sneers against
labor unions.
The “big” commentators on national hookups are in the
pay of big money, in the pay of the thousand men who run the
country, and while it may be possible for them not to speak
the propaganda pieces of the NAM and similar peak organiza¬
tions of industry and finance, it is not expedient. In 1946 and
1947 the liberal press reported the dismissal of newscasters and
news commentators at about the rate of one a month. Perhaps
it is just another coincidence that without exception the score
of men who have been put off the air are those who did not
propagandize for free enterprise and big business, and who did
not attack labor, or sneer at all liberal ideas.
In the business of manufacturing public opinion, one of
the usual methods is the introduction into the appendix of the
Congressional Record of the editorial opinion of hometown
newspapers as well as those of Washington and New York.
Sometimes vast sections of the body of the Record itself are
given over to quotations from the press of the land, all of
course substantiating the viewpoint of the member of Congress
who reads or inserts these editorials.
44
1000 AMERICANS
In turn, the newspapers reprint the Congressman’s views.
And when sufficient “build-up” has been created by press, radio
and congressional oratory, a bill is drafted to meet the call of
“the people of the United States,” and debate begins.
The press takes sides. And shortly afterwards it is no sur¬
prise to find that an honest public opinion poll confirms the
views of both the press and the framers of the bill in Congress.
The poll, actually, has become a barometer of propaganda and
prejudices of newspaper and radio commentators, rather than a
test of enlightened thinking.
The voters will never learn from any of the means of mass
communications that one of the sponsors of the bill introduced
“on their behalf” is also the benefactor of a huge election fund,
the major contributors to which are also the leading membert
of the NAM or the local chamber of commerce.
The public will never realize that from the first proposal,
to the campaign in the press and radio, to the eventual passage
of a bill in Congress, there has been a behind-the-scenes activity
on the part of a few who have acted entirely for their own
benefit and who have been successful because of their over¬
whelming power.
This statement is easily documented.
The history of the National Association of Manufacturers
as revealed by the Thomas-La Follette investigation, shows that
it was reoriented in 1933, shortly after the election of F. D.
Roosevelt, that its chief objective, the destruction of the labor
movement, was never lost sight of, and that its policy was to
fight laws favoring the unions.
The first Wagner bill failed of passage. The Wagner Act
became law July 5, 1935, and was immediately declared uncon¬
stitutional—not by the Supreme Court, but by the corpora¬
tions. The NAM believed it unconstitutional and the most
powerful publicity organization in the hands of the NAM, the
American Newspaper Publishers Association, echoed the views
of big business. Some corporations, however, obeyed the law
they did not like, but newspaper publishers were advised to
break it. “If the NLRB issued an order in this case, Mr. Hearst
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
45
will not comply with it/* said Elisha Hanson, who is attorney
for Hearst, the International Power and Paper Company and
the AN PA. In October, 1936, Mr. Hanson sent this bit of
advice to his newspaper clients: “Publishers from now on
should flatly refuse to have anything to do with the NLRB
other than to notify it it is without power under the constitu¬
tion to interfere with their business. ... No order of the
Board . . . will, if it be contested, be upheld in the courts.*'
The decisive test was made in behalf of Big Business by
the Associated Press, the great news service, which had fired
Morris Watson on the charge that he was organizing the News¬
paper Guild. On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court ruled
against the NAM and AN PA and in favor of American demo¬
cratic procedure.
From then on until the convening of the next Republican
Congress, in January, 1947, the Special Conference Committee
and the NAM spent a frightened decade lining up all the pow¬
erful forces in the nation to use every pressure, including the
press, to emasculate or weaken the Wagner Act.
Not one day in those 10 years passed without a news item,
a headline, an editorial, a radio mention attacking the Wagner
Act. The New York Times, for example, published an average
of 12 editorials a year advocating a change in this law for the
benefit of business. The owner of the Times states frequently
that he is a “liberal.” Newspapers with less pretensions in¬
dulged in the usual frauds of journalism while fighting to de¬
stroy what has since become known as the Magna Carta of
labor.
The destruction of the union labor movement had become
the main objective of the NAM at its 1903 convention in New
Orleans when it was but 8 years old. According to the La Fol-
lette investigation the NAM itself said that this “marked the
first declaration by a representative national body for the open
shop as a cardinal policy.’*
In 1932, just after the election but “before the progressive
policies of the new administration had been crystallized in
legislation,’* the “Brass Hats,” a group of wealthy businessmen,
46
1000 AMERICANS
reorganized the NAM for the purpose of protecting corporate
interests.
Immediately after the passage of the Wagner Act, but even
before the President signed it and made it law, the NAM called
a secret session of its leaders, the heads of the few companies
which controlled it, to consider five Administration measures:
the Wagner Bill, the tax program, NRA, a plan to protect
industry, and social security. According to the La Follette re¬
port the NAM also opposed the Banking Act, the Utility Hold¬
ing Company Act, and similar legislation. It began its great
many-million dollar propaganda campaign after it failed to stop
the reforms by lobbying; it aimed “to render public opinion
intolerant of the aims of social progress through legislative
effort.” In other words, a few men decided by the expenditure
of millions in advertising and publicity and through the use of
the press and other mediums to so change public opinion in the
United States that it would use its pressure against measures
aimed for its own benefit. The concluding part of the Thomas-
La Follette report states:
“Finally, the committee deplores the failure of the NAM
and the powerful corporations which guide its policies to adapt
themselves to changing times and to laws which the majority of
the people deem wise and necessary.”
The United States Chamber of Commerce likewise op¬
posed not only the Wagner Act but each and every piece of
social legislation the New Deal planned for the restoration of
the nation and the necessary benefit of the majority.
It is true that in 1933 the NAM went into immediate
action against social welfare whereas the Chamber of Com¬
merce surprisingly supported the President and his policies.
It was a short honeymoon.
The break came in the May, 1935, convention. In a fireside
chat Roosevelt had just outlined five reforms: The Social
Security Bill, Extension of NRA, Elimination of Public Utility
Holding Companies, Regulation of all Forms of Interstate
Transport, and the Omnibus Banking Bill.
The Chamber met and denounced four of the five FDR
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
47
“musts/' It opposed social security because “within a decade
there will be a tax burden amounting probably to as much as
one billion dollars a year"; it asked that NRA expire as per
schedule in June; the elimination of holding companies (which
are largely light and power, dominated by the House of Mor¬
gan) was called “destruction of enterprise," “violation of funda¬
mental principles" that would mean a loss to investors; trans¬
port regulation was approved; the banking bill was denounced
as “political dictatorship." In June the Chamber denounced
the Wagner Act as “a dangerous measure" and said the country
could not pay the “staggering" costs of social security.
From that time on the Chamber assisted the NAM in its
twelve-year fight against the Roosevelt program of social legis¬
lation and especially the Wagner Act.
Of the thousands of examples which document the charge
of collaboration between NAM, press and Congress, here are a
few samples:
1937: “Wage Bill Junking Urged by Chamber"— New
York Times of August 15. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce
stated that “Attention should now be given to changes in the
National Labor Relations Act rather than to making any addi¬
tions to it." The NAM and the press, especially the New York
Times, followed this line: changes, rather than repeal.
1937: Dec. 7. Lewis H. Haney, professor of economics at
New York University and daily Hearst columnist (believe it or
not), in an address to National Industrial Council (affiliated
with NAM) urged the “scrapping" of the Wagner Act, said
wages were inflated, denounced strikes.
1938: Editor & Publisher, April 23, reported convention
of advertising men at which Lee Bristol, maker of patent medi¬
cines, urged revision of Wagner Act.
1941: Los Angeles Examiner (Hearst), June 17, reported
address by W. D. Fuller, president of the NAM (and president
of the Curtis Publishing Co., publishers of the Saturday Eve¬
ning Post and other magazines). “Fuller would amend Wagner
Act, enforce laws," said part of the headline.
1943: Saturday Evening Post in a big editorial answered
48
1000 AMERICANS
readers* questions, May 15: “5. Would you repeal the NLRA?
(Answer) No, although it looks as if the War Labor Board
might achieve the same result. We should, however, favor
amendments to the Wagner Act giving the employer the right
to point out that some labor unions are run by racketeers. . .
The big magazine press as well as the newspapers followed the
NAM line.
1944: January 21. Federated Press reported address by
H. W. Prentis, Jr. (who was listed as an enemy of American
democracy by Attorney General Jackson,* and who is an ex¬
president of the NAM), telling the National Industrial Confer¬
ence Board they must work for “legislation to remove the
Wage-Hours Law, the Wagner Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-
Injunction Act, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and other laws
affecting labor management relations.**
1944: May 20. Editor b Publisher concluded one of its
many anti-labor editorials: “We repeat that Congress must re¬
vise our labor laws.’*
1945: July 2. The New York Times used its “labor editor,**
Louis Stark, for one of its almost daily “think pieces’’ or camou¬
flaged editorials passed off as news items. Head: “strikes spur
DEMAND FOR LABOR LAW CHANGES.” If this news item had stated
that the demand for a change in the Wagner Act came from the
corporations and the NAM, it would have been a fair item.
1945: October 26. “new labor policy urged by mosher.**
The Timesj as usual, gives a column to every NAM president
who speaks against the Wagner Act.
Throughout the year, as before and after, the various
native reactionary organizations continued their attack on the
Wagner Act. Sample: Committee for Constitutional Govern¬
ment (denounced in Congress as America’s No. 1 fascist organ¬
ization) sent hundreds of thousands of leaflets headed, “What’s
the Matter with America?” the first line of which said: “Labor
unions are wrecking the country.” Theme: change the Wagner
Act.
In 1946 it became clear that after the death of President
• Law Society Jouriial (Mass.), Nov., 1940.
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
49
Roosevelt and the end of the war, a great period of reaction
would set in, which could be exploited by certain interests.
They did not fail the opportunity.
In January the newspapers permitted an organization
which signed itself “Society of Sentinels, Detroit” to publish a
huge “Open Letter to President Truman” which urged the
end of OPA; the preservation of the United States as “an
island of freedom, so that liberty may not everywhere perish
from this earth”; and the destruction of the Wagner Act. The
newspapers failed to state that this advertising was paid for by
General Motors men and other big industrialists.
On March 22 the great New York Times approved tlie
Case bill, which labor called “one of the most vicious” and a
“labor slavery” bill.
The entire issue of NAM’s weekly News of May 18 was
devoted to urging Congress to enact this Bill, and also to
destroy the OPA. (When OPA finally was destroyed, but before
it was estimated that as a result every person in the country
would have to pay $250 more for his living in 1946, the NAM
boasted it was the power behind congressional action.)
On June 11 the Kiwanians and the U. S. Chamber united
in urging what the Times called in its headline the next morn¬
ing “Fair Labor Curbs.” The weekly cartoon of the NAM’s
Industrial Press Service of July 22 showed workers sleeping on
the job, thanks to the Wagner Act. On August 13 the Times
ran another editorial against the Wagner Act.
In September the Committee for Constitutional Govern¬
ment began a campaign of millions of letters and pieces of
“literature” to smash the Wagner Act. It sent out items by
Professor Willford I. King, one of its paid lobbyists and a
member of the staff of New York University, and ex-Congress-
man Sam Pettengill of Indiana. Of the frightening propaganda,
the railroad weekly Labor, said: “The way to save America,
according to this precious outfit, which apparently is collecting
immense sums from the gullible rich, is to destroy trade union¬
ism. You will remember Hitler and Mussolini took the same
position.”
50
1000 AMERICANS
On October 11 the Times printed, for perhaps the twen¬
tieth time, the same old program of the NAM board chairman,
Ira Moshei, on how to smash labor. The Times knew it was
printing old stuff, and old stuff is never news unless the owner
of the newspaper wants it to be news. So it appeared again.
Just before the election the NAM got many of its corpora¬
tion affiliates to circularize big business with an appeal for
money for its publicity campaign in press and radio against
labor. Here is a sample letter:
November 4, 1946
[Name of recipient withheld]
As you have supported the NIIC [the NAM's propaganda
dept.] in the past, you are aware of what the NAM public relations
program is doing to combat the unsound Robin Hood economics
of those who think the way to make the country prosperous is to
make jobs by regimenting business, stifling competition and con¬
fiscating profits [sic]. . . .
The NAM has a public relations program that is getting re¬
sults. No doubt you recall the recent nationwide NAM campaign
to make labor equal with management before the law. Most ob¬
servers believe that we will get remedial labor legislation as a
result of this fight—which is being aggressively continued—at the
next session of Congress.
[Signed] Frazer A. Bailey, Chairman,
NAM Development Committee.”
Following the election, the press and the Congress were
unanimous in declaring that the first order of business would
be labor legislation. The Times* head of November 9 was:
“Wagner Act Faces Move for Revision in Next Congress.” Soon
this was the unanimous opinion of the press of the United
States.
Columnist David Lawrence said that “some amendments
to the Wagner Act are long overdue” (November 12). “Senator
Hawkes Hits Wagner Act” reported the New York News
November 15, without stating that Hawkes is a previous presi¬
dent of the Chamber of Commerce, the head of Congoleum
Nairn.
And so it went.
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
51
Congress was to meet January 3. The month of December
was therefore vital in the anti-labor tactics of Big Business and
its little helpers.
It would be impossible in the space available even to list
the items illustrating the campaign. But the following samples
are important because the very same alignment of powers
occurs on every issue in which the public interest is involved.
Reaction called upon the press, radio and all sorts of organiza¬
tions and spokesmen to do a job, and the job was done, just as
it has been done in the past and as it will be done in the future
unless the public—against whom the job is directed—learns
how to protect itself. This is pait of the December record:
December 1. United Press, serving more than 1,000 dailies,
carried what it termed “Senator Wiley’s labor-reform pro¬
gram,” practically nullifying the Wagner Act.
“nam will propose a labor program,” reported the
Times,
December 2. “abolish labor bosses, kiwanis speaker
asks” (World Telegram), Quoted Kiwanis International com¬
mittee chairman George Stringfellow that “Wagner Act has
created a labor monopoly.”
Tool Owners* Union, a big business outfit including ex¬
posed fascists, Coughlinites, and labor baiters used a page ad
in the New York Times and many papers to collect money to
fight labor.
December 3. Fred Perkins, Scripps-Howard chain colum¬
nist, reported Senator Ball’s plan to destroy unions.
December 4. “case declares congress must act on
LABOR.” Congressman Case of South Dakota, elected with part
of the $53,700 fund raised by duPont, Pew and other heads of
the NAM, is one of the main agents of the NAM line in Con¬
gress. This was an AP report used throughout the nation.
At the opening of the NAM convention. Executive Secre¬
tary Weisenburger demanded changes in the Wagner Act, de¬
claring it was “bringing America dangerously close to open
revolution.”
December 5. If anyone doubts the NAM-press-Congress
52
1000 AMERICANS
line-up against labor (and the general welfare), the headline
this day was a complete giveaway. It was: “senators ball, byrd
AT NAM SESSION TO OUTLINE CONGRESS PLANS.’* TwO leading
senators rushed to the NAM convention to promise big busi¬
ness they would lead in the attempt to destroy the effectiveness
of the Wagner Act and 14 years of liberal-labor legislation.
December 6. The NAM News, published daily during con¬
vention, carried this head: “new labor law to be severe on
UNIONS, SAYS BALL.”
Columnist Mark Sullivan, who writes about a hundred
anti-labor columns a year, attacked the Wagner Act, said the
“climate” had changed November 5 when the GOP won.
President William K. Jackson of the United States Cham¬
ber of Commerce over American Forum of the Air attacked the
Wagner Act as unfair to employers.
The fakery and hypocrisy of the press which had headlined
a sudden liberal policy by the NAM (“liberal program on
LABOR, ECONOMY ANNOUNCED BY NAM,” New York Times, De¬
cember 5) was exposed by the liberal daily PM which pictured
the New York Herald Tribune headline (“nam asks labor
CURB to rebuild u s”) alongside the Times head.
The National Legislative representative of the United
Autoworkers, Irving Richter, in his report published this da)
stated:
“TTie top Republican leaders did more than just vote the
NAM line in the last Congress. They originated and militantly
pushed a program for big business. They had two great advan¬
tages over the Democrats: First, they knew exactly what they
wanted—the greatest possible profit for the Wall Street crowd,
regardless of consequences to the general population. . . .”
December 7. Columnist Stokes reported: “The extreme
right in this country is operating now more actively and more
openly than ever. It was emboldened by the recent election.
. . . This element which is powerful because it is so well
entrenched financially, showed its teeth at the annual conven¬
tion of the NAM. ... It is certain that there is going to be
labor legislation in the new Congress. . . . How drastic and
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
53
punitive it is will depend upon whether the Republican party
leadership follows the extremists represented in the NAM
minority or whether it takes a more moderate course.”
It should be noted that Stokes is frequently suppressed by
his Scripps-Howard chain and other papers, and that his voice,
and articles in the liberal-labor weeklies showing the NAM-
press-Congress line-up against the welfare of the public, do not
reach one hundredth the readership of the commercial press,
its brasscheck columnists, editorial writers, cartoonists, finan¬
cial editors, reactionary radio commentators and other makers
of public opinion.
“A sweeping revision of the Wagner labor relations act”
was being drafted by Representative Howard Smith of Vir¬
ginia, another of the NAM voices in Congress, reported the
Herald Tribune»
December 8 . New York Times: “From many sources last
week came demands for revising the Wagner Act.” GOP chair¬
man Carroll Reece was quoted as saying, “Labor legislation
was still the first and foremost problem facing the new
Congress.” “curbs on labor likely despite lewis retreat”—
Herald Tribune,
December 9. United Press item: “congress drive for
strike curb seen bolstered.”
Life magazine devoted an entire editorial page to an
attack on labor. “Merely by revising parts of the Wagner Act”
was a solution, the usual NAM solution. Also favored revising,
amending Norris-LaGuardia anti-injunction law. And the
whole NAM program.
December 11. “labor curbs will be first congress job.”
Washington report to New York Herald Tribune.
December 13. “study labor curbs on politics” — New
York Sun,
Page ads in many papers paid for by Wall Street broker,
E. F. Hutton, stated: “We want the Wagner Act reviewed.”
December 15. “debate on labor laws centers on wag-
NER act” —Louis Stark in the Times, “early wagner act
revision is shaping up in congress” — Herald Tribune. “To
54
1000 AMERICANS
call Senator Ball a reactionary, as some of the labor press now
does, is fantastic,” wrote the reactionary ex-liberal Mark
Sullivan.
December 16. NEA (Scripps-Howard) columnist Peter
Edson: “cop revenge reaction rides high.” A joint statement
by top labor and management spokesmen, including NAM and
Chamber of Commerce, for peaceful labor settlements was
called “too late” by Congressman Clarence Brown of Ohio who
“expressed impatience to get on with the job of amending the
Wagner Act”— (AP). “capitol is cool to labor peace plan”
— (AP), “Under the Wagner Act we have had more strikes
than ever before,” wrote Lawrence Fertig, listed as “writer on
economic affairs” in Scripps-Howard papers.
December 18. Two-page ad in Pew’s Pathfinder, and other
publications, paid for by The Conference of American Small
Business Organizations, which states: “We will draft necessary
legislation to amend the Wagner Labor Relations Act.” This is
one of the few open and honest statements by big business as
to who drafts the anti-labor legislation which Congress passes.
December 19. Columnist David Lawrence (who also pub¬
lishes United States News) attacked the Wagner Act, said it
would be repealed unless some labor leaders agreed to amend¬
ments. Trends, a Wall Street newsletter, reported Ball, Byrd
and Smith writing anti-labor laws.
Two to three solid columns were given over by big news¬
papers to the “10-Point Labor Harmony Plan” of General
Motors’ chairman, Alfred P. Sloan (New York Sun), The ten
points did not vary from the 1933 NAM program or the New
York Times perennial anti-Wagner Act editorials.
December 20. The Smith Bill was announced, the press
giving it a fine play. Senator Taft announced debate on Feb¬
ruary 15.
December 23. Senator Taft, one of the wealthiest business
men of Ohio, announced he was the best man to head the
Senate Labor Committee. Columnist Marquis Childs stated
Taft favored reviving the Case Bill.
December 24. The New York Herald Tribune reported
NAM-TO-PRESS-TO-CONGRESS
55
that Taft would outmaneuver the liberal Republican Aiken
for the committee chairmanship, and that Taft, in discussing
the CIO claim, via the Nathan report, that industry could raise
wages 25% without raising prices, declared: “The solution for
the country is lower prices, not higher wages.’*
There was a brief interlude for Christmas week. But in
January, 1947, with the opening of Congress, the vast national
orchestra of press, radio, public speakers and Congressmen
began their thundering but harmonious playing of the Wag¬
ner Act Blues.
The Magna Carta of labor was to be sabotaged—not re¬
pealed—in exactly the way the NAM planned it in 1035.
So much for the overt campaign. When Congress met in
January, press and politicians agreed on one thing: first action
would be a labor bill. And a labor bill soon came before the
House and Senate, sponsored, respectively, by Representative
Fred A. Hartley, a man with one of the worst voting records
so far as labor, liberal and pro bono publico measures are con¬
cerned, and one of the best records so far as subservience to
corporate wealth and power are concerned; and the ubiquitous
Senator Taft, the Ohio business man.
In April, when the committees of both legislative bodies
were writing a compromise measure, fearing that the President
would veto the House version as unconstitutional as well as un¬
fair and punitive, the conservative leaders of rival labor unions
for once agreed on a statement. Philip Murray of the CI(3,
William Green of the AFL and A. F. Whitney of the Railroad
Trainmen denounced the Taft-Hartley “slave labor” bill as a
fascist measure. All three agreed that it followed the early
action against unions taken by Hitler and Mussolini. The
press, as usual, suppressed or buried the fascist references.
Coincident with the release of the report of the Commis¬
sion on Freedom of the Press—see last chapter—in which the
newspapers were accused of failure to serve the American
people, they proved the charge by suppressing one of the most
important news items of the time.
If the reader will take the time and trouble to visit his
56
1000 AMERICANS
library, he will find in the Congressional Record of April 15,
16, and 17, 1947, in the debate on the Hartley Bill, the evi¬
dence of a dozen members of the House that this measure was
originated by the NAM, sponsored by the NAM, and finally
written by representatives of the NAM. In fact, on pages 3731
to 3733 he will find in parallel columns the NAM original and
the Hartley Bill, officially introduced by Representative Blat-
nik of Minnesota. He will find named the lawyers and lobby¬
ists accused of writing the bill: Theodore R. Iserman of the
Chrysler Corporation and friend of Senator Ball; William
Ingles, the $20,400 a year lobbyist for Allis Chalmers, Frue-
hauf Trailer, J. 1. Case and Inland Steel; one Jerry Morgan,
who serves several corporations; and Mark Jones, an industrial
promoter vaguely connected with the Rockefeller interests.
If our country had a free press—if at least a small per¬
centage of its 1750 dailies was honest—the matter would have
been played up for exactly what it was: one of the most sensa¬
tional news items of the congressional session. The facts were
there, the matter was documented, and it was privileged. Not
only did a final total of 18 members of the House, but later on,
in May, five members of the Senate, Republican and Demo¬
cratic alike, repeated the charges. Nevertheless, serene in their
confidence that few if any papers would break their conspiracy
of silence on matters affecting the general good of the greatest
number of Americans, the press suppressed the news.
Sixty years of bitter struggle by the majority of the people
of the United States to end costly strikes, violence and blood¬
shed, culminated in the destruction by reaction of the great
gains of the New Deal of the Roosevelt Era. The NAM, the
press, the Congress, the radio oracles, the columnists, the maga¬
zines, the one thousand rulers and their tens of thousands of
paid agents, were again successful in gaining the day for the
economic royalists, the money changers Roosevelt declared he
would drive out of the temple. They were back—not in the
temple, perhaps, but surely in the press, the radio, and in
Congress.
PART TWO
BIG MAGAZINES
CHAPTER 5
THE MAGAZINE PRESS
The general distrust with which a healthy-minded people
regards its newspapers does not extend to the other half of the
press—the extraordinarily powerful group of popular maga¬
zines. It is quite natural that the Fortune Poll should ask the
public—as it did in 1936—what it thought of its newspapers,
and arrive at the not surprising conclusion that at least 26%,
or about 30,000,000 persons, had their doubts. Fortune, how¬
ever, did not ask the public what it thought of the integrity of
its million-dollar making million circulation big brother,
Time, nor of Time's rivals and colleagues.
Much more important is the fact that whereas there has
been at least a little criticism in many places, from the presi¬
dency to the liberal weeklies, of the entire newspaper press, the
news services, and their false concepts of freedom of the press,
there has been almost nothing said about the weekly or monthly
magazines. It is as if critics and the organs of enlightenment no
longer regard the magazine press of importance in the forma¬
tion of public opinion and the guidance of American affairs.
Such an explanation would be based on the history of the
great truth-telling (or “muckraking,** as its enemies later called
it) magazine era of the first two decades of the Twentieth Cen¬
tury, and the eventual emasculation or suppression of free
magazines by the industrial and financial interests. Darkness
and sweet romance descended upon the magazine world—the
great muckraker, Everybody's, actually changed its name to
Romance Magazine —^and from the First World War to this
57
58
1000 AMERICANS
day there has seldom been reason to look into a popular maga¬
zine for important news and great exposes which the news¬
paper press, retreating before the advance of the most selfish
forces in the nation, had abandoned without a fight.
The great powers were not satisfied with their complete
victory over the magazine press. (Its documented history is told
in “Crusaders for American Liberalism” by Louis Filler, Har-
court. Brace & Co., 1939.) Trash may indeed be the opium of
the people, but it was not the real aim of the magazines to
stupefy the public, merely to suppress the facts, merely to
nullify, to create a wasteland. The great powers slowly but uni¬
versally turned the magazine press into an agency for the
propaganda of their own ideologies. The House of Morgan,
whose direct interest in newspapers is almost nil, branched out
into the magazine field. The Harknesses, the Harrimans, the
Astors, the last private banking house of Brown Brothers, and
some of the leaders of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers came quietly into the financing and control of most of
the million-circulation magazines, until today it may be said—
as the table appearing later shows—that the topmost ranks of
Big Business and Big Banking are represented in the control
of the weeklies and monthlies which reach twice as many
people in America as the newspapers.
This control is partly open, partly secret, but whether
open or secret, it is not known to the millions. It is true that
the United States Post Office requires an annual statement of
owners of weeklies as well as daily newspapers. When. Milton
Stewart of the Commission on Freedom of the Press com¬
plained that “it is impossible for us, without the power of
subpoena, to find out who runs the various media—radio,
newspapers and movies,” the well-paid apologist for the press.
Editor & Publisher, replied (December 1, 1945): “Mr. Stewart
obviously is unaware of the Act of Congress, August 24, 1912,
. . . requiring newspapers and magazines to publish a state¬
ment of ownership, management and circulation every year.
If Mr. Stewart would check he would find a record of the chief
executives, names and addresses of all stockholders and bond-
THE MAGAZINE PRESS
59
holders having more than 1% interest for all newspapers.*'
If Mr. Stewart did check a number of magazines and came
upon the name A. K. Lockett, it is very likely he would give
it no special attention, and it can be presumed that the mil¬
lions not in the profession would ignore that name entirely.
Nevertheless, it is Mr. Lockett who represents the House of
Morgan in the management and control of several of the most
powerful organs of public opinion in the country.
It might also be pointed out to Editor & Publisher that at
the time Frank E. Gannett was heavily indebted to the Inter¬
national Power and Paper Company, the Brooklyn Eagle, in
publishing its statement of ownership, did not reveal that not
1% but 40% of itself was mortgaged to an outsider. Nor did
Mr. S. E. Thomason of the Chicago Journal reveal the fact
that his paper also was in the same financial situation. The law
of the land states that publishers must tell the facts of stock
ownership or be fined and sent to the penitentiary. However
the law does not mention loans.
Moreover, International Power and Paper was at least
60% a public utility, a vital link in the chain which formed
the great Power Trust. Back of the $600^000,000 newsprint,
power and light corporation were the most powerful banking
houses of the United States, chief being the Rockefeller Chase
National Bank, represented by Albert H. Wiggin, chairman of
its board and director of International Power and Paper; and
the Morgan group through the Bankers Trust Company,
whose Owen D. Young was a member of the reorganization
committee which in 1928 set up the holding company.
Through Mr. Young the group became allied with the
Mohawk-Hudson Power Company, a great factor in the fight
of many decades against public power, and against the St.
Lawrence Seaway in particular.
At one time or another International Power and Paper
owned a substantial interest in the Brooklyn Eagle, the Chi¬
cago Daily News, the Knickerbocker Press and Evening News,
the two Gannett papers in Albany, Gannett’s Ithaca Journal-
News, the Boston Herald, the Boston Traveler, Chicago Jour-
60
1000 AMERICANS
nal, Tampa Tribune, Greensboro (N,C.) Record, Augusta
Chronicle, Columbia (S.C.) Herald, Spartansburg Journal
(published by Harold Hall and William La Varre)—and tried,
for $20,000,000, to buy several metropolitan newspapers.
It may, of course, be just a coincidence that almost the
entire press, and almost every paper which had any dealings
at all with the Rockefeller-Morgan-IP&P-Mohawk-Hudson
combination, opposed and still opposes public power, and will
fight any attempt to benefit all its readers by the passage of the
St. Lawrence legislation.
But it is no coincidence that the power trust spent up to
$25,000,000 a year on newspapers and magazines, and that the
press, with so few exceptions that these could not sway public
opinion, repaid the trust for its open bribery, its open adver¬
tising, or its other pressures. The corruption of the newspapers
is now generally known. Somehow or other the part the maga¬
zines played in control of public opinion has been overlooked.
Nevertheless, the evidence is official, Martin Insull testi¬
fied on the campaign of “goodwill” advertising,—advertising
not intended to sell anything but to obtain the goodwill of the
publishers for the power trust:
“The National Electric Light Association starts out with a
campaign of its own, running a certain number of advertisements
in the Saturday Evening Post. That campaign cost the NELA 50
odd thousand dollars.’*
“In its program to gain ‘public goodwill’ . . . the utility in¬
dustry instituted an essay contest in the schools. . . . Early in Sep¬
tember, 1924, the national advertising of this contest began in the
leading magazines of the country, including the Saturday Evening
Post, Literary Digest, Ladies* Home Journal, Collier*s, American,
Cosmopolitan and Good Housekeeping.**
(U. S. Congress, Utility Corporations, Report 71-a. Senate
Document 92; 70th Congress, 1st Session.)
The 73 volumes of reports, exhibits and index explain in
detail the dealings with numerous magazines, the propaganda
the utility trust put over on the American people, and the part
the magazines played in doing it.
With some of the newspapers it was necessary to bribe the
THE MAGAZINE PRESS
61
editors and publishers. But with the big magazines it cannot
be said that anything unethical or illegal took place. The
magazines, unlike many newspapers, were in the direct owner¬
ship or control of the same persons and corporations which had
a community of interest not only with the NELA but with the
private profit business system.
The NAM is the peak association of big business. It is not
only the most powerful private organization in the country,
it is the spokesman and chief propagandist of free enterprise.
Although the public, or perhaps only 99% of the public, does
not know it, through its members the NAM, in addition to
being a dominant power in the newspapers—as Monograph 26
shows—is also a dominant power in the magazines, and, more¬
over, it has the following connections:
Walter D. Fuller: President of the Curtis Publishing Co.,
one of the reorganizers and present director of the NAM, also
president (1947) of the National Publishers* Association.
William B, Warner: McCalVs, Redbook and other maga¬
zines, ex-president reorganizer and director of the NAM, presi¬
dent (until his death in 1946) of the NPA.
Malcolm Muir: President of McGraw-Hill, publisher of
many industrial magazines, also Business Week and Newsweek
(Time's chief rival), another link in the NAM chain of maga¬
zine influence.
J. Howard Pew: President of the Sun Oil Company
(Sunoco). The Pew family also owns the Sun Shipbuilding
Company and other industrial enterprises. Their publishing
interests are: the Farm Journal^ with almost 3,000,000 circula¬
tion, and The Pathfinder, the first of the newsweekly type of
magazines. In addition to being among the largest contributors
to political campaigns, the Pews also dispensed money to a
dozen organizations including the Crusaders, a leading native
fascist outfit, and the Sentinels of the Republic, the anti-
Semitic affiliate of the American Liberty League.
The National Publishers’ Association through its mem¬
bers has always had control of many magazines and has been
more closely allied with the NAM than the American News-
62
1000 AMERICANS
paper Publishers Association, nevertheless so quiet has been
its operations that there is not even a mention of this powerful
group in the Monopoly Investigation report which exposes
the ANPA.
The NPA and the ANPA, with their 50,000,000 daily
newspaper and 100,000,000 weekly and monthly magazine cir¬
culation, form the most powerful opinion-creating force in
America.
Many of the activities of the ANPA are publicized; it
meets annually, and although its main sessions—when it dis¬
cusses strikebreaking and how to fight its own employees,
including the Newspaper Guild—^are still secret (no freedom
of the press when the press itself is concerned!)—it cannot be
said that the ANPA is a blushing violet. As a lobby it was tre¬
mendously powerful in Washington.
On the other hand, the magazine publishers conducted a
powerful lobby but sought no publicity and preferred to re¬
main behind the scenes. And inasmuch as the newspaper and
magazine press pretty well control the facts, they have pretty
well kept the American people in ignorance about the lobby¬
ing activities.
Thanks to an anonymous person who once made public a
confidential memorandum circulated among the members of
the NPA, a light is thrown upon the activities of the organiza¬
tion which shows it up clearly and unequivocally.
It was the year 1934. A New Deal had been promised and
was under way to achievement. One of its first and most impor¬
tant provisions was a labor law which would free the majority
from the oppressive controls of the minority. Another was a
bill to save the health, and incidentally the pocketbook, of the
people by enforcing purity in food and drugs—and also in the
advertising of commodities. Social Security at last became a
national issue.
On July 16 of that year, the magazine publishers issued a
memorandum of what their role had been in fighting social
legislation. It said in part:
“This has been a most unusual year in the publishing field
the magazine press 63
and the National Publishers* Association has due cause to be proud
of its operations during the year in the interests of the entire
publishing industry.
“Wagner Labor Bill. This legislation would have been very
costly to all publishers whether or not they operate their own
printing plant. We took a very active part in killing this legislation.
“Tugwell Pure Food and Drug Bill. As originally proposed,
this legislation would have been a serious blow to all advertising.
Your committee and executives were finally successful in modifying
this legislation.
“Unemployment Insurance. This bill provided for a tax of 5%
on all payrolls. Its seriousness speaks for itself, and your repre¬
sentatives aided in preventing its passage.’*
The National Association of Manufacturers had fought
the same bills; the American Newspaper Publishers’ Associa¬
tion had fought the same bills, both more or less in the open,
the newspaper press by poisoning the public mind with false
news, half-truths, bias and misinformation. The magazine pub¬
lishers worked in secrecy.
The head of the NPA was one of the men who not only
reorganized the NAM but one of the Brass Hat clique which
in 1933, after the beginning of the New Deal, turned the
NAM into a labor-fighting outfit: William Bishop Warner,
publisher of McCall's^ Red Book and other magazines.
The Crowell Publishing Company, publishers of Colliefs,
The American Magazine, and Woman's Home Companion,
was represented in NPA by A. D. Mayo.
The Curtis Publishing Company {Saturday Evening Post,
Ladies' Home Journal) was represented by P. S. Collins, spokes¬
man for President W. D. Fuller, one of the inner powers of
the NAM.
The Luce publications {Time, Life, Fortune) were repre¬
sented by Roy Larsen, publisher of Time.
The U. S. Chamber of Commerce’s magazine. The Na¬
tion's Business, was represented by its editor. Merle Thorpe.
Malcolm Muir represented the McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company.
It should be noted that the magazine press as well as the
newspaper press—and the NAM and all other forces of reac-
64
1000 AMERICANS
tion, including a large part of Congress—continued to fight the
Wagner Labor Act which succeeded despite their efforts; that
they were able to destroy the Tugwell Bill largely, especially the
parts dealing with advertising; and that they continued to fight
social security even when the tax was set lower than 5%.
The enemies of public health displayed themselves during
the various pure food and drug bill hearings, but inasmuch as
they included both the magazine and newspaper press, there
was no one to laugh at them, to criticize, to denounce them as
“un-American.”
In case there was any doubt about what their editorial
policy should be, the National Publishers* Association sent
every magazine in the country a directive in 1933 saying:
. “The directors of the NPA Inc., realizing that there is im¬
minent danger in the passage of the socalled Tugwell measure as
embodied in Senator Copeland*s Bill S. 1944, are definitely opposed
to it in its present form.”
The special NPA committee formed to protect “publishers'
interests”—their only interests were money, via advertising,
and these interests were in direct opposition to public interests
—included the Curtis Company’s Fred A. Healy; the Crowell
firm was represented by Lee Maxwell; the Luce interests by
R. L. Johnson; and spokesman for the publishers was the rep¬
resentative of the Ladies' Home Journal, Charles Coolidge
Parlin, who thought that by insisting on calling it the Tugwell
Bill, at a time the press had red-baited Tugwell, half the battle
to destroy it was won. A great part of the campaign was to say
the bill would “sovietize” America.
Mr. Hearst’s contribution to the campaign was to use not
only his Good Housekeeping magazine and his American
Druggist, but to found a new publication. Drug World, all
devoted to cooperating with the NPA, the Proprietary Asso¬
ciation and the NAM members fighting public welfare. Here
again, as has been shown elsewhere in the text and will be
shown in future chapters, all the powerful elements were
leagued against the public.
One of the men who told the truth—in a book some time
THE MAGAZINE PRESS
65
later—^was Kenneth Crawford (then a leading liberal journal¬
ist, later a reactionary, now a member of the staff of a maga¬
zine, Newsweek, belonging to the NAM-NPA set-up) who
wrote (“The Pressure Boys,” p. 83):
'‘The National Publishers' Association, trade association of
the slick magazines, the American Newspaper Publishers Associa¬
tion, whose time is spent protecting the freedom of the press to do
what it pleases, regardless of the public welfare, the National
Editorial Association, which does the same thing for the weeklies,
and many individual journalists did their bit against the Tugwell
Bill. Among the most effective of the individuals was David Lav/-
rence, publisher of the United States News, who dutifully spread
the propaganda that the bill would require a doctor’s prescription
for the simplest household remedy. Anna Steese Richardson, Good
Citizenship editor of the Woman*s Home Companion, made a 12,-
000-mile lecture tour preaching Proprietary Association doctrine.”
The league against the public welfare included both wings
of the press, magazine and newspaper, who saw their income
hurt if advertising were made as honest as the labels on medi¬
cines, and since these editors and publishers controlled the
news, the public could not get the facts, let alone organize to
protect itself.
The Monopoly investigation pointed out (Monograph 26,
p. 183) that “the original Food and Drug Act of 1906” which
the corrupt press had fought but not defeated “was amended
several times, but no fundamental revision of it was attempted
until the Copeland Bill was introduced in 1933.” It was the
so-called muckraking or free magazine press, led by Colliefs,
which had made possible the Harrison Act in 1906, and it was
a corrupt press, now including magazines, which 27 years later
tried to kill the laws. Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wal¬
lace said of one of its provisions that it would “hamstring its
administration so as to amount to a practical nullification.”
Monograph 26 continues (p. 184): “One of the chief fac¬
tors involved in this legislation was the very general interest
of Congress. . . . Almost every legislator has in his district some
interest, aside from consumers, affected by the legislation. The
Vick Chemical Co. of North Carolina, and the Lambert
Pharmacal Co. of St. Louis, were represented in the crusading
66 1000 AMERICANS
zeal of Senators Bailey (N.C.) and Clark (Mo.) to combat
bureaucracy. . . .
“Another important factor was the little publicity given
to the legislation in the press. Newspapers had apparently been
led to believe that it was a menace to advertising. . . .
“Business pressure was brought to bear during considera¬
tion of the Food and Drug Act to maintain the value of ad¬
vertising to business, without regard to the consumer’s in¬
terest.”
Significantly enough the Monograph, which names the
Proprietary Association, two senators, the conspiracy of silence
on the part of the newspapers, fails to mention the magazine
press at all, not from lack of courage but from lack of knowl¬
edge, confirming my statements that the NPA, in contrast to
the NAM and the ANPA, aims at secrecy.
In concluding its study of the pressure group, however,
the TNEC recognized its powers. “In these fields,” it said, “as
in others, the superior resources of business place it in a stra¬
tegic position, and it is difficult for farmers, consumers, and
even small distributors to imprint their own desires on public
policy. Here as in other segments of public policy, the elec¬
torate needs the facts, if it is not to be unduly influenced by
the superior show of strength from business.”
CHAPTER 6
THE MORGAN HOUSE AND MAGAZINES
The most interesting fact which can be discovered in any
investigation of ownership and control of the great magazines
of the United States is the powerful participation of the House
of Morgan.
It is apparent from the evidence available that great
financial interests are confident that they can control the news¬
paper press through various means, but that the magazine press
is not so easily manipulated, and nothing but hidden financing
is strong enough to direct the policies of this once great liberal
means of public communication and enlightenment.
This attitude on the part of the several banking houses
now in the magazine business is no doubt the result of the
great fight between the “vested interests” and the public wel¬
fare which took place in what is generally known as the muck¬
raking era. It was the magazine press, and not the majority
of newspapers, which from the turn of the century to the end
of the First World War produced for the amazement of the
American people, the most sensational and documented series
of exposes of corruption in the nation’s history.
When it began it had the sponsorship of all people who
had the general welfare at heart, but as the probes went deeper
and further, and seemed to spare none of the hidden powers,
the politicians as well as other spokesmen for money, business
and profiteering, turned savagely upon the really free press
and destroyed it.
Theodore Roosevelt tried to do it with one word. The
“progressive” who had at first aided the courageous journalists
and investigators, now denounced them as “muckrakers,” and
the venal newspaper press, which had previously abdicated its
only reason for existence—the duty to print the news—now
turtied upon the magazines, which had supplanted them in this
work and heaped muck upon them, repeating TR’s quotation
67
68
1000 AMERICANS
from Pilgrim’s Progress ad infinitum. A dissenting opinion was
expressed by the governor of New York (and later Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court). Charles Evans Hughes said:
'‘When there is muck to be raked, it must be raked, and
the public must know of it, that it may mete out justice. . . .
“Publicity is a great purifier because it sets in motion the
forces of public opinion, and in this country public opinion
controls the courses of the nation.” (From an address to the
Manufacturers’ Association, 1906.)
Every underhand device was used by the financial and in¬
dustrial masters of America to destroy the magazine or muck¬
raking or free press. Bank loans were called, paper supply was
stopped, publications were bought outright or their owners
somehow bribed, and every inducement, financial and other¬
wise, was offered many of the investigators to cease and desist.
Suits were filed to harass publishers, the United States Post
Office was enlisted by the corporations and their bankers to
help destroy the magazines, and even President Taft became
a party to this undertaking. Louis Filler in his “Crusaders for
American Liberalism” concludes:
“The movement to put a stop to exposure was systematically
begun by those who felt that they could no longer tolerate inter¬
ference in their affairs . . . the destruction of the magazines was
deliberately planned and accomplished in short order—in the case
of individual organs, within a few months.
“It was not enough for the trusts to develop private publicity
bureaus, nor even to influence the independent press. So long as
the muckrakers were at large and had a forum, they were danger¬
ous—more dangerous than the Socialists, who scorned reform.”
Wall Street, the trusts, “frenzied finance,” both houses of
Congress, robbery of the people, the Rockefeller Standard Oil
conspiracy, the despoliation of the natural resources of the
nation, were subjects for the magazines, and were without ques¬
tion more important than two comprehensive series of ex¬
poses which appeared in Collier*s, “the national weekly”: the
patent medicine swindle—which had corrupted the news¬
papers—and the expose of the newspapers themselves. But, in
attacking the corrupt press Collier's may have done a bolder
THE MORGAN HOUSE AND MAGAZINES
69
thing than Everybody's, Hampton's, The Arena, Metropolitan,
McClure's, Cosmopolitan, The Ladies' Home Journal,
Harper's Weekly, and all the other famous rivals, all now dead
or silenced.
The United States reeked with corruption; the news¬
paper press had failed the people, and the reason obviously was
control via advertising, by the covert—and overt—powers. The
muckraking era was eight years old when Colliei's in 1910 pub¬
lished its series on the daily newspapers—the first such action
in the country’s history.
The patent medicine expose started in 1905. On Novem¬
ber 4th, Collier's in an article titled, “The Contract of Silence”
indicated that the press of America was corrupt, inasmuch as
at least 99% of it had sold out to the makers of poisonous or
useless patent medicines. The contract referred to was a simple
little clause which appeared in red ink on the advertising con¬
tracts of cough and consumption cures, and even cancer cures.
It said simply:
“It is mutually agreed that this contract is void, if
any law is enacted by our State restricting or pro¬
hibiting the manufacture or sale of proprietary med¬
icines.”
The press saw to it that no laws were passed.
It should also be noted that the journalist who obtained
a copy of this contract, which according to President F. J.
Cheney of the Proprietary Medicine Association made of the
press a legislative tool of the quack medicine trust, was young
Mark Sullivan of the Ladies Home Journal That writer has
now become the mouthpiece of the most reactionary forces in
the country, and the magazine is now owned by the Curtis
Publishing Company.
Collier's passed into the hands of the Crowell Publishing
Company which then had as one of its directors the head of
the press, publicity and public relations department of the
House of Morgan: Thomas W. Lamont. This was the first
70
1000 AMERICANS
step of the Morgan firm into the publishing field. Since then,
the firm has taken many others.
Very little has been said about this, naturally, since it is
apparent that there exist few avenues for the publication of
either facts or criticisms of this situation. Perhaps the most
incisive, complete and bitter report is that of the noted icono¬
clast of the world of education. Porter Sargent, who in his
privately printed book, “What Makes Lives,” devotes a great
number of pages to the power of the Morgan house in politics,
the colleges, and the press. Of the present head of the Morgan
empire he writes:
“Mr. Lament, having stepped into the shoes of Charles Per¬
kins, the first publicity man for Morgan, has since that time had
much to do with the printed word. Newspapers, magazines, pub¬
lishing houses, have been bought into, their policies changed.
Books about to be published have been modified or censored.
Walter Millis* ‘Road to War’ before publication was purged of the
part Morgan played. 7"he September, 1939, issue of Harper's, deal¬
ing with international topics, led to a call-down from the banker
directors, and the publication of many pro-British and reactionary
articles followed. Writers of books, once bold and free, are now
cautious and avoid interference which they know would come.
Such writers find a ready market for their wares. Those who do not
conform seldom find publishers.
“All this is a tendency of the times, in which many have par¬
ticipated and which perhaps is supported by public opinion. But
no man in the country has been more influential in determining
editorial and publishing and educational policies these past twenty
years than Thomas Lamont. He will prove a most interesting sub¬
ject for some future biographer who can trace the influences upon
him from Charles Perkins, and his influences through his partners,
colleagues, friends, on boards of publications, philanthropic foun¬
dations, educational establishments. He has had position, oppor¬
tunity, to influence the minds of the present generation through
what was taught and read as almost no other man.” (Pages 171-2)
“From a mere newspaper reporter, Lamont has come to per¬
haps the most influential place in the country, brains of the House
of Morgan. . . .
“From the Crowell Publishing Company, Mr. Lamont testi¬
fied, he wants only dividends. From Harvard he expects no divi¬
dends, of course, except the feeling of prestige and influence, and
the knowledge that he is keeping things safe for the kind of
democracy he approves. Some might call it plutocracy. . . .
“Mr. Lamont has played so influential a part in the financial.
THE MORGAN HOUSE AND MAGAZINES
71
publishing and educational activities of the country during the
past quarter century that we may regard him as a symbol of our
times. . . .
“If we are to understand how our mental content is as it is,
why we know certain things and are ignorant of others, why what
we call our opinions are as they are, it is necessary to understand
how the information that has come to us has been controlled, why
certain kinds of facts have been withheld or slightly twisted.
“As publicity man for the House of Morgan and the whole
system that they stand for, Mr. Lamont found it desirable and
necessary to protect that system by controlling what is published
and taught. He and those who have been inspired, employed,
or instigated by him, and others who stand for the same thing,
have been effective in so doing.
“So the muckrakers were suppressed, the newspapers were re¬
duced, brought into safe hands, writers were controlled, books
privately censored, publishing houses bought into and influenced,
peace societies and philanthropic and educational foundations
linked up with financial houses and the universities by interlock¬
ing directorates, our university teachers kept looking forward to
pensions, young recalcitrants dismissed or set in their places, the
preparatory schools dominated.'" (Page 202)
While the House of Morgan was represented on the Board
of Directors of the Crowell Publishing Company two of the
greatest and most powerful magazines of the muckraking era,
Collier's and The American, changed their policies. (The other
Crowell publications were Woman's Home Companion and
the defunct Country Home —like the Curtis firm it also had its
woman’s magazine and its farm magazine.) The three popular
magazines now published by the firm have a circulation of a
little under 10,000,000 and therefore about 50,000,000 readers,
which is a majority of the literate adult public of the country.
CHAPTER 7
MORGAN EMPIRE AND LUCE EMPIRE
After the muckraking era, the new owners of the magazines
formulated a new policy: the magazine press must be made
a safe and sane agency for the propaganda of big business,
the bankers, the employers, the status quo, reaction, and what
later became known as “free enterprise.’* In other words, the
new bosses ordered a complete reversal of policy.
The best known illustrations of influencing it are that of
the campaign of the National Electric Light Association, which
spent $25,000,000 a year informing the American people that
private ownership of power and light was to its benefit; and
the annual campaigns of the National Association of Manu¬
facturers, each costing several million dollars. In both instances
documentary evidence has shown that “canned” editorials and
even “canned” news items went along with the advertising,
and that the American people were fooled—not a few all the
time, or all a part of the time, but all the people all the time.
In this job of fooling the people the magazine press did even
a better job for its masters than the newspaper press.
Under the new policy of making the press a defense agency
of money and power, the House of Morgan extended itself
into more and more powerful magazines. But the greatest
stroke of luck it ever had was with the newsweekly Time —
and the successive Luce publications. Fortune and Lije,
In 1923 two comparatively penniless journalists, Henry
Luce and Briton Hadden, presented a brilliant plan to people
with money. E. Roland Harriman approved and so did Harvey
Firestone; the Harkness family put up some money; so did
Dwight Morrow, one of the Morgan partners; but another
Morgan partner, H. P. Davison, was one of the most enthusias¬
tic backers. Luce and Haddon raised only $86,000 to get out
the first issue of Time, and it was mostly Wall Street and
reactionary talking money.
72
MORGAN EMPIRE AND LUCE EMPIRE
73
Time's statement of ownership, required by the United
States Post Office, shows that in 1935 among the owners of
1% or more of stock were:
Henry P. Davison, 23 Wall Street, New York
Edith H. Harkness and William H. Harkness
Estate of Briton Hadden
Henry R. Luce (See Appendix 14 for full list)
The 1939 sworn statement is somewhat different. It includes:
Brown Bros., Harriman Sc Co., 59 Wall Street, New York
J. P. Morgan 8c Co. (Account of Henry P. Davison)
New York Trust Co. (Accounts of Edith and William Hark'
ness)
The other Luce enterprises show the same ownership.
For example, the statement filed by Life includes Brown Bros.,
Harriman Sc Co.; J. P. Morgan 8c Co., for the account of Henry
P. Davison, and the usual names.
Although published annually, apparently these statements
are not read by the public, and rumors circulate. Letters by
the score arrived at Time's office questioning the Morgan in¬
terest, and Time was forced to explain (in 1937) in its Letters-
to-the-Editor department, as follows:
“In 1922 (before Time was published) and in 1925, Time Inc,
raised a total of $148,000 by the sale of preferred and common
stock. Of this amount Mr. Harry P. Davison subscribed something
less than $10,000. Since then the preferred shares in question
have been retired, Mr, Davison has become a Morgan partner and
his common shares have been registered in the name of J. P.
Morgan Sc Co. for the account of Henry P. Davison. His holdings
amount to less than 3% of Time Inc. stock now outstanding. Some
54% is owned by its editors, writers, business staff and their im¬
mediate families.—Ed.“
The small investment of the Harrimans, Harknesses,
Brown Bros., and the Morgan partners in the Luce publica¬
tions paid dividends equal to a strike in gold or oil. In 1936
Time grossed $12,900,000 and had a net profit of $2,700,000.
In 1940 Time's net was about $5,000,444. Members of the
editorial staff, however, wrote me that “Luce is nobody's stooge.
Of course Time will never do anything against the interests
1000 AMERICANS
74
of the House of Morgan, but then neither will most other
magazines without a penny of Morgan money in them.
This view, from inside the Time office, is confirmed by
facts which have been revealed and by any study of the actual
text of the three major magazines Luce publishes. Any reader
can do what the writer has done: look through the pages of
Time, Life and Fortune for all references to the House of
Morgan and compare them to established facts.
Nothing in the history of the Morgan Empire has been as
sensational as the evidence produced by the Nye-Vandenberg
investigation into the munitions industry implicating the great
banking house in America’s entry into the First World War.
And nothing in the history of the Luce publications so re¬
veals their effort to protect Morgan as their treatment of the
news on this subject—from 1934 even to the present time.
On December 14, 1934, shortly after it had gotten under
way, the munitions investigation committee, headed by Sena¬
tors Nye and Vandenberg, produced the most damning docu¬
ment in modern history relating to the influence of bankers
and war. It was the cable sent to President Wilson by the
American ambassador to England, Walter Hines Page; it was
dated March 5, 1917, almost exactly a month to a day before
the declaration of war by the United States; and its most
important paragraphs were:
“The inquiries which I have made here about financial con¬
ditions disclose an international situation which is most alarming
to the financial and industrial outlook of the United States.”
“If the United States declares war against Germany, the great¬
est help we could give Great Britain and the Allies would be
such credit. ... A great advantage would be that all the money
would be kept in the United States. We could keep on with our
trade and increase it, till the war ends.”
“On the other hand, if we keep nearly all the gold . . . there
may be a worldwide panic.”
“Of course we cannot extend such a credit unless we go to
war with Germany.”
“The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has gone
beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for the British
and French governments.”
“It is not improbable that the only way of maintaining our
MORGAN EMPIRE AND LUCE EMPIRE 75
present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by de¬
claring war on Germany/* (For full text, see Appendix 8.)
A large part of the American press suppressed the news
of the Page cablegram calling for a declaration of war in pro¬
tection of the Morgan loans.
Beginning on its first news page, issue of December 24,
1934, Time reported to the extent of more than four columns
on the munitions investigation. Its heading was “War-Without-
Profit.” There was no mention whatever of the Page cable.
As for the banking house which was one of its owners. Time
reported:
“The (Nye-Vandenberg) Committee was out to regain its lost
ground by making new sensations. Senator Nye decided to grab
a sure-fire headline getter when he announced he would investigate
J. P. Morgan & Co. because ‘no exhaustive study of the munitions
business is possible without a knowledge of its financial agency.* *^
When Mr. Morgan finally came to the hearings it was
1936, and Time devoted seven columns to his defense. This
was accomplished largely through the style in which its report
was written: it began by saying the Committee had “set out to
prove, if possible, that the United States had gone to war in
1917 because Wall Street’s international bankers needed
United States troops in the field to secure repayment of their
Allied loans.” It reported Senator Norris saying that “gold”
was taking us into the war but countered that “when the
history of 1914-18 was written it said plainly that the United
States went to war because German submarines sank United
States ships without warning, killing United States citizens,”
pretending that this childish statement was real history. Then
it mentioned historian Walter Millis’ charge: “The mighty
stream of supplies . . . the corresponding stream of prosperity
. . . the United States was enmeshed more deeply than ever
in the cause of Allied victory.” It then sneered at “any stump-
ster” who sought to accuse the bankers and change history.
It called the Morgan issue “a scandalous question,” concluded
that “yesterday’s scandal like yesterday’s news, is hard to re¬
vive,” but did not print the Page cable. Instead it devoted
76
1000 AMERICANS
the major part of its seven columns to quoting and defending
Morgan and other bankers.
From that day on, Time never has lost an opportunity to
return to the subject, always defending Morgan and always
attacking the investigation. Here are some sample Time para¬
graphs:
July 17, 1939: “The Nye Committee pumped J. P. Mor¬
gan, Thomas Lamont and their partners, trying to prove that
they had helped to grease the skids that plunged the United
States into war. There was no evidence that they had tried
to.’*
September 4, 1939: “To hang any large part of the 'blame*
on J. P. Morgan & Co. seems to Time to be first class politics
and third rate history.’’ (This is reply to a protest that its
July item was a falsehood.)
November 6, 1939: “When Isolationist Nye of North
Dakota made his third speech, Byrnes signaled for the attack
himself, with an assault on Nye’s recent change-of-front on
the responsibility of J. P. Morgan Sc Co. for World War L**
(Also quoted Senator Minton attacking Nye for making “more
from his lectures on munitions than duPont has made.**)
May 20, 1940: , . Uncle Sam became Uncle Shylock,
the country heard tliat the holy crusade had been waged to
make good J. P. Morgati’s loans, that Our Buddies were the
pawns of the munitions-makers, that the Road to War was
paved with baloney . . .**
Finally, when the second J. P. Morgan died in 1943, Time
as well as the rest of the press joined in a eulogy which of
course suppressed facts of importance. The Hearst Journal-
American and the rest of the chain, then in the hands of the
bankers because of failure to pay interest on its stock (now
paid off)» published a 6-column picture on an 8-column page;
the Neio York Times, which alone among papers rivaled Time
in Morgan sycophancy, devoted 8 columns to the obituary,
and Time, March 22, gave Morgan three pages of praise. It
failed to mention the Page cable, the Nye-Vandenberg dis¬
closures, or the Morgan loan to Italy which saved Fascism
MORGAN EMPIRE AND LUCE EMPIRE
77
in 1925, and other little news items of perhaps some interest.
But it did say (under a self-conscious headline “no buc¬
caneer”);
“The United States for two decades had largely believed in a
fairy tale of Marxist origin—the legend that international bankers
sucked the nation into a war which was none of its business. , .
“Fairy tale” and “legend” are of course propaganda words^
and “Marxist origin” is the old red-baiting technique by which
truth is destroyed, by which Mussolini floated the Morgan
loan, and by which six million men were murdered by Hitler.
The truth is that every historian has taken cognizance of
the disclosures made by the investigating committee, not only
the Page cable, but all the documents left behind by William
Jennings Bryan, Newton Baker, Woodrow Wilson and other
leading actors in the tragic drama of 1917. America’s greatest
historians, Charles and Mary Beard, and all the rest, are agreed
that the Nye-Vandenberg findings, and not the propaganda
paragraphs in Time and the New York Times, constitute true
history.
Walter Millis: “American industry and finance, led by
the Morgan firm . . . devoted themselves to extending the
economic complex which tended ... to thrust the nation more
and more deeply into an economic alliance with the Entente
and consequently nearer and nearer to war with Gennany.”
(Note that another Millis paragraph and not this one was
used by Time.)
Charles A. Beard: “We were confronting the alternatives
of a domestic crash and a foreign war, when we entered the
war.”
William E. Woodward (“A New American History”):
“By gradual and successive developments we were drawn into
a war which was purely European in character, and which had
no point of contact with American affairs, except insofar as
American interests were represented by profiteers in war sup¬
plies and the lenders of money to Germany’s enemies.”
Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes (to the present writer); “You
are entirely right about the bankers and the First World War.”*
78
1000 AMERICANS
(His documentation on this subject appears in “War in the
Twentieth Century,” pp. 77-80.)
No historian or fair-minded journalist would try to make
a personal devil of J. P. Morgan & Co. (any more than any
honest historian or journalist could whitewash the bankers,
as Time has tried to do). The Nye Committee itself (as
summed up in the New York Times) saw a larger reason for
our entry into the war: “The financial interdependence be¬
tween this country and the Allies, evidenced by loans amount¬
ing to $7,077,000,000 before the United States entered the
war, forced its entry into the war.” The New Republic (July
1, 1936) summed up the facts: “Essentially the Committee
finds that the Morgans held a key position to influence govern¬
ment policy during the years of our own neutrality and used
that position not to 'drag us in* but to steer us bit by bit into
a situation from which there was no way out but war.’* Even
more brief is the editorial statement of the New York Post
(January 8, 1936): “We weren’t 'forced* into the war by those
(Morgan) loans. But we were drawn in by the economic cir¬
cumstances of which those loans were a symbol.”
Timers reportage on the House of Morgan for twenty
years has been neither accurate history nor straightforward
journalism. It has been propaganda, whitewash for the House
of Morgan, one of its owners throughout all the years of its
existence.
It would not be incorrect to say that Time —and Life,
Fortune, The March of Time, and each and every Luce pro¬
duction—works for the Morgan Empire every day in the year.
It is in every way part of the same free enterprise system, and
although not controlled by a Morgan agent sitting at a desk
in its office, it has a community of interest with the rest of
the “$30,210,000,000 worth of United States railroads, utilities,
industries, banks” which are under the Morgan-First National
influence (as Time itself reported February 26, 1940). Both
are parts of a system which they watch, nurture and expand,
and which they speak for.
The illustrations of open propaganda and apologetics,
MORGAN EMPIRE AND LUCE EMPIRE
79
dictated or not dictated by Mr. Lamont, “the foreign am-
bassadoi of the House of Morgan/* are many, but they merely
highlight the relationship.
As, for instance, the “Wall Street Plot to Seize the Gov¬
ernment.”
The documentary evidence, which is referred to elsewhere,
was pretty well suppressed by the newspapeis, but the predeces¬
sor of the Dies Committee—the McCormaLk-Dickstein Com-
mittee—eventually confirmed the most sensational charges,
concluded that there had been a plot and that certain Ameri¬
can Legion leaders and well-known men of Wall Street, one
closely connected with the House of Morgan, had indeed
planned the first American fascist dictatorship.
At the mention of the magic name “Morgan** the I.uce
publications mobilized in defense. Everything from distortion
to the usual “light touch’* of the famous “bright young mcn”^
of the Luce employ, the usual sneers and the usual adjectival
barrage by men well trained in semantics, came into play to
protect the most sacred cow worshiped in America, the Big
Money for which J. P. Morgan was first high priest.
For example (Time's first and second page story, Decem¬
ber 3, 1934):
“PLOT WITHOUT PLOTTERS’*
(There follows a bright little imaginary story of General
Smedley Butler mobilizing 500,000 men, capturing Washing¬
ton, the United States becoming a fascist state.)
“Such was the nightmarish page of future United States history
pictured last week in Manhattan by General Butler himself to the
special House Committee investigating Un-American Activities.
“No military officer of the United States since the late tem¬
pestuous George Custer has succeeded in publicly floundering in so
much hot water as Smedley Darlington Butler. . . .
[There follows a history of episodes in Butler’s life, told
as if they were all planned for publicity.]
“General Butler*s sensational tongue had not been heard in
the nation’s Press for more than a week when he cornered a re¬
porter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post, poured
80 1000 AMERICANS
into his ears the lurid tale that he had been offered leadership of
a Fascist Putsch scheduled for next year.
“Thanking their stars for having such sure-fire publicity
dropped in their laps, Representatives McCormack and Dickstein
began calling witnesses to expose the ‘plot/ But there did not seem
to be any plotters. . . .
“Mr. Morgan, just off a boat from Europe, had nothing to
say but Partner Lamont did: ‘Perfect moonshinel Too utterably
ridiculous to comment uponi I . . . /'
Any reader comparing the testimony and the Committee
report on this event, given in the appendix of this book, must
conclude that the Time report consists of distortion and propa¬
ganda.
The case of the House of Morgan and World War I and
the handling of the conspiracy uncovered by General Butler,
and their treatment by Time, and other Luce publications,
are but two of scores of instances illustrating the community
of interest which exists between the banking house and the
Luce press. The amount of stock all the men of Wall Street
own in the Luce publications may be only a small percentage,
but it pays a dividend which cannot be measured in dollars
only.
The Luce press, like the entire big magazines press, angles
the news—and theiefore angles public opinion in America
for the community of big business interests of which it is an
important journalistic part.
CHAPTER 8
THE MORGAN EMPIRE: PRESS RELATIONS
In 1923, long before he became head of the Morgan Empire,
I’homas W. Lamont, its more or less secret prime minister,
paid an income tax of $847,820. During the making of the
Versailles Treaty, Lamont was a member of the Reparations
Commission, an appointee of President Wilson’s.
In 1925, visiting Rome, Lamont said (to Hiram Mother-
well, of the Chicago Daily Nexus): “It would be a lot easier to
float a ton of lead in New York harbor than an Italian loan
in Wall Street.” All dictatorships were dangeious risks, Mr.
Lamont stated (off the record) “and this one in particular,
because it is a one-man show.” He pointed out that Great
Britain had never floated an Italian loan after Mussolini came
to power “because the British bankers are careful and con¬
servative.”
Almost immediately afterwards Mr. Lamont’s firm floated
the $100,000,000 loan which saved Mussolini and Fascismo.
Mr. Lamont himself was able to write in defense:
“Ask any traveller. . . . When the present regime came into
power towards the end of 1922, Italy seemed to be tottering on
the brink below which lay communism and bolshevism. The in¬
dustrial system had become badly disorganized through an epi¬
demic of strikes, with workers seizing control of the factories, and
with widespread unemployment. There had been a virtual break¬
down of railroad and other government services and of civil and
judicial procedure. Municipal administration as well was burdened
with incompetence and extravagance. The finances of the central
government were unsound; government debt was piling up and the
deficits in the government’s budget were increasing. . . .
“Considerable currency has been given to stories that the
Italian government has distorted its account of revenues and ex¬
penditures and by some method of transferring charges to munic¬
ipal accounts, has manufactured the surpluses which it has re¬
ported. These stories may be denied absolutely. I am satisfied that
the central government exercises close supervision over municipal
budgets and municipal financing, and that the improvement in
81
82 1000 AMERICANS
municipal finance has measurably paralleled that in central Gov¬
ernment finance. . . .
“That the government’s budget is in fact balanced and has
been for the past two and a half years, there is not the slightest
doubt.” {Survey, March 1, 1927.)
The very opposite was stated by none other than Mr.
Mussolini himself who wrote (in his Popolo d*Italia, July 2,
1921) that “Bolshevism is conquered” and had not existed
more than a year before the “March” on Rome. And Professor
Salvemini, using official fascist documents, has proved the
Mussolini budgets fraudulent from 1922 on.
Nevertheless, from 1925 to at least the day Mussolini, in
the words of President Roosevelt, stabbed us in the back, the
American people believed that the Duce had saved his country
from the reds and was therefore deserving of American sym¬
pathy and Morgan money.
The opinion of the American .people was directed as
plainly as Mussolini himself directed public opinion in his
own dictatorship. No daily dictatorial orders were given, but
somehow the newspapers and the magazines and other forces
which push people around were able to create and keep alive
the “bolshevik myth” to the benefit of the House of Morgan.
In the Saturday Evening Post of May 29, 1926, the in¬
vestigators will find the leading article entitled “After Musso¬
lini—^What?” by Isaac F. Marcosson, one of the first of three¬
score and ten American journalists who have written in favor
of Fascism or Fascist leaders in the columns of this leading
periodical of the Big Business system. It is most likely that
neither the National Association of Manufacturers, nor the
editor, nor Mr. Lamont himself, as much as suggested to Mr.
Marcosson that a good rousing piece in favor of Mussolini
would help preserve the Morgan myth and steady the Morgan
bonds, nevertheless the evidence shows that the pro-fascist
articles filled the pages of this magazine from 1922 on. (Latest
propagandist for a Fascist dictator is Henry J. Taylor who in
the Saturday Evening Post of August 19, 1944, wrote the same
THE MORGAN EMPIRE: PRESS RELATIONS 85
sort of stuff which Marcosson wrote in 1926, but this time the
hero was the Duce of Portugal, Salazar.)
Another leading Saturday Evening Post writer, then known
as Kenneth L. Roberts (and now better known as Kenneth
Roberts, the novelist who has glorified American Tories and
denigrated the American Revolution and the common people
who fought alongside George Washington) wrote that “the
Fascist movement” “was a greatly needed movement” because
“it saved the nation from descending into a chaotic whirlpool
of Communism.” Mussolini was absolutely sincere and honest.
“Mussolini’s dictatorship is a good dictatorship.”
Tile Rome bureaus of the Associated Press, largest news
service of the Americas, the New York Times, most powerful
paper in the country, the Daily Mail, the most powerful mass
circulation British newspaper, and other vast avenues of public
information were in the hands of the Cortesi family, who were
personnae gratae to the Fascists. All members united in build¬
ing up the Morgan myth. The House of Morgan itself used its
own publicity department to propagate the great red-baiting
falsehood that in 1922 Mussolini had defeated Communism,
and was therefore worthy of financial aid. There is no doubt
that the Morgan myth replaced authentic history.
Lamont took a loss of $2,000,000 in publishing the New
York Evening Post, the one daily newspaper the House of
Morgan has ever owned. Mr. Lamont also lost money on the
Saturday Review of Literature (now in other hands). It was
the opinion of the editor of Editor & Publisher, Arthur Robb,
that the financing of the Saturday Reviezu of Literature “has
for nearly two decades given Morgan a strategic foothold in
the book publishing,” but publishers insist that although it
might have been a foothold, it was certainly not strategic. Mr.
Robb quotes Lundberg: “Lamont is also cited as a director of
Crowell Publishing Co. and as a silent manipulator of the
press, who can get almost anything he wants put in or kept
out of newspapers.” Mr. Robb, piofessional apologist of the
press, did not deny this but stated: “That, of necessity, rests
on assertion.” {Editor & Publisher, January 22, 1938.)
84
1000 AMERICANS
It was during the Lament ownership of Saturday Review
of Literature that a disclosure was made which shocked the
book publishing world.
Two sensational books exposing the munitions makers
(“Merchants of Death'’ by Engelbrecht and Hanaghen, and
“Iron, Blood and Profits,’’ by George Seldes) had been written
before the Senate Committee produced the Page cable which
mentioned the Morgan loans to Britain.
The demand for a more up-to-date book was met by Rose
Stein with her “M-Day,” written under contract with Harcourt,
Brace & Co., a leading publisher. Miss Stein not only quoted
the Page cable but devoted many paragraphs to the House of
Morgan, its Mi\ Harry Davison (who had helped Henry Luce
finance Time) and its Mr. Lamont, and the part loans played
in bringing America into the war.
In the protest against a review written by Walter Millis,
one of the many American writers who has followed the usual
aging route of left to right. Miss Stein, remarking on his charge
that she had used material which had not yet been placed on
the public record, declared:
“It so happens that Thomas W. Lamont of J. P. Morgan
& Co., in one of his several attempts to block publication of
*M-Day,’ made the same charge.”
The matter was taken up with the publisher who, in
filing a disclaimer of an attempt to block publication, said
in part:
“The publication of ‘M-Day’ was delayed about 4 weeks be¬
cause of questions raised concerning it by Mr. Lamont, but it
would not be correct to say that Mr. Lamont attempted to block
publication of the book. Through the editorial offices of a New
York publication, one of whose staff turned to Mr. Lamont as to
one well acquainted with this field of literature for advice concern¬
ing the book, Mr. Lamont saw a set of galley proofs of ‘M-Day.*
After two preliminary telephone calls, raising- certain questions
concerning the book, Mr. Lamont, at our request, sent us a memo¬
randum outlining his findings in ‘M-Day.’ His memorandum did
not deal with the questions raised over the telephone but called
attention to facts and statements in the book which he considered
inaccurate and misleading. His written communication was, of
THE MORGAN EMPIRE: PRESS RELATIONS 85
course, a private one, similar to communications we frequently
receive which call attention to* alleged inaccuracies in a publication.
After consulting with Miss Stein we published ‘M-Day' March 19.
Charles A. Pearce,
Harcourt, Brace & Co." *
It is not unusual for publishers to submit page proofs to
interested parties, friends or enemies. But in this case it was
not Harcourt Brace which sent “M-Day" to Mr. Lamont. The
editorial staff of the Saturday Review of Literature had re*
ceived the proofs for the purpose of writing an advance review,
but inasmuch as Mr. Lamont was the owner of the magazine
he was able to get the proofs delivered to him instead of the
hired reviewer.
Even more intriguing than the sympathetic ties of Time,
Life and Fortune with the Morgan Empire is the journalism
of the New York Times. The 3% interest, apologists can say,
did not dictate the pro-Morgan policy of the Luce publications.
But the policy has always been there. On the part of the New
York Times there is no financial interest whatever; it is a
community of interests.
Under both Ochs and Sulzberger the American thunderer
has been more of a mouthorgan playing the tunes Morgan
likes than even Time. And like the Luce publications, when
the test came during the Nye investigation, the Times much
more crudely, much more blatantly and much more carelessly
than Time went to the defense and apology of the banker.
The Times said that the senatorial inquiry had exonerated
the House of Morgan and in reply Senator Nye declared that
the olympian Times had published a falsehood. He demanded
a retraction, and being a Senator he was able to get space for
his reply.
The Times then gave over its letter columns to Mr.
Lamont, who took on one and all of the critics of Morgan.
At least, it did seem so to daily readers.
Actually, one of the facts not mentioned in Lamont’s
reply was the September 5, 1919, speech by President Wilson
in which he admitted that the First World War was “an in-
* The Nation, April 15, 1936.
86
1000 AMERICANS
dustrial and commercial war*' {See Appendix 9), a fact almost
unknown to the American public although it had actually
appeared in the text of the speech in the columns of the Times
itself. There was great debate over a matter about which there
could be no question at all, and my letter to the Times so
informed the paper, as all it would have to do to end the con¬
troversy was to look into itself, issue of September the 6th,
1919, page 2, column 4. And having a forewarning that the
Times, it;hose face was black with the Morgan shoepolish, as
Heywood Broun so often remarked, would not refer to his¬
torical truth because it would shed a certain light upon Mr.
Lamont's propaganda, I asked other people to write in the
facts from other towns. But the Times continued to let the
debate rage in its columns, with Mr. Lamont always having
the better of it, of course, because none of the letters revealing
die truth was published.
The full story of the Tim^5-Morgan-Lamont episode is
told in my book, '‘Lords of the Press.” Unfortunately, I coufS
not there nor can I here give the text of an exchange of letters
between Mr. Lamont and myself concerning my comment on
the Page cable and President Wilson’s St. Louis declarations.
Mr. Lamont’s letters are marked “peisonal.” Tlie important
thing about the matter is that Mr. Lamont took up the subject
with me, just as apparently he has taken up this and other
subjects dealing critically with the House of Morgan with
book writers, newspaper writers and others who may influence
public thinking.
When Robert L. Duffus, a staff writer of the Times, re¬
viewed Harold Nicholson’s life of Dwight Morrow, a Morgan
partner, remarking incidentally that “the financiers actually
made us an ally of the Allies while we were still officially
neutral” and that Morrow, in ‘‘helping to draw the country
into the European war ... had a part in decivilizing the world,”
Mr. Lamont protested, and of course the Times gave him all
the space he wanted, as it has done frequently, and let him have
the final word, as it does usually.
The fact that other daily newspapers are more sensitive
THE MORGAN EMPIRE: PRESS RELATIONS
87
to the wishes of Lamont and the Morgan fortunes than the
New York Times is understandable. Many are more in need
of advertising or other support which Morgan can give, and
can therefore not afford to be as critical. The New York Sun,
for example, debased itself much more than the Times in
reporting the Nye Committee findings, but the Sun is not only
the mouthpiece of Wall Street, it was (and may still be) tied
to the corporations through a huge mortgage (as a result of
the Munsey will). Its financial editor, Franz Schneider, was
on the Morgan preferred list; he was let in on the “ground
floor,’* permitted to buy new flotations at less than their mar¬
ket value, a recipient of a cash present from Morgan but not
a bribe.
As for the Crowell Publishing Co., it was as late as Novem¬
ber 9, 1946, that Editor Chenery devoted a whole page to an
indignant reply to charges of Morgan control of the firm. He
concluded:
“The only item of fact in the malicious canard is that
Thomas W. Lamont, a Morgan partner, is a minority stock¬
holder.’’
Thirteen years earlier some surprise was occasioned in
writing and publishing circles by the disclosure of Morgan
participation in the Crowell firm, but ever since then it has
been common knowledge that Mr. Lamont has had his say
in the direction of Crowell and all its magazines.
Shortly after a Senate investigation named Mr. Lamont
as a director of the house which published four popular maga¬
zines which then had a circulation of 8,000,000—or at least
40,000,000 readers—the following additional facts were dis«
closed:
1. That at the time (1933) Mr. Lamont owned the Satur^
day Review of Literature.
2. That the elder Morgan had installed George Harvey,
publisher and politician and known as “the president-maker,’
as editor of Harper's Weekly —Harvey later edited the North
American Review.
88
1000 AMERICANS
3. That the Morgan preferred list included journalists
and public opinion makers.
4. That Mr. Lamont in the pages of Collier's wrote a
6-part biography of Morgan partner Davison, which turned
into a glorification of the House of Morgan.
Apparently Mr. Davison was a nugatory character, hardly
worth one issue of Collier's, for the major portion of the
biography is devoted to the elder Morgan, omitting of course
the entire story of the 5,000 carbines which Morgan sold to
the government during the Civil War, the speculation in gold
which Lincoln denounced, the corruption of the financial sys¬
tem which resulted in the 1907 panic, and the falsehoods told
by the Morgan firm to Theodore Roosevelt by which United
States Steel was able to absorb Tennessee Steel. In destroying
the myth which Lamont had created in Collier's —whose
readers did not know the author was also on that magazine’s
directorate—the liberal Nation said of the financier: “He was
one of the greatest enemies our society ever had.”
Commenting on the use of a publication by a Morgan
propagandist, the Nation also said: “To hold such a man up
to the admiration of the present generation, at this time, is
an insult to the intelligence of the American reader. It shows
the need of greater vigilance than ever, of keener scrutiny
of the forces that directly and indirectly shape public opinion
through the press, the magazines, and other means by which
ideas are instilled.”
When Mr. Lamont became chairman, or head of the
Morgan firm, he gave over the job of publicity, press and
magazine director, to a certain A. H. Lockett.
This name is the clew to a fact which, so far as this writer
knows, has never before been published: the participation of
Morgan in the control of Neivsweek, the rival to Time and
The Pathfinder, in the big money newsweekly field.
As late as 1944, Newsweek made no secret of the presence
of Lamont’s successor, Lockett, on its board of directors. The
column listing editorial and business control of December 25,
1939, names the board of directors:
THE MORGAN EMPIRE: PRESS RELATIONS 89
Vincent Astor (head of the Astor fortune, mostly invested
in New York real estate), chairman.
W. Averell Harriman (of the railroad and banking Harri-
mans, of Brown Bros., Harriman & Co., and later Secretary of
Commerce).
Malcolm Muir, of McGraw-Hill (publisher of numerous
trade and scientific publications, and a leader of the National
Association of Manufacturers).
Charles F. Bomer—and A. H. Lockett.
In 1941 the name of W. Averell Harriman disappeared,
being replaced by E. Roland Harriman.
In 1943 the name of Vincent Astor disappeared, being
replaced by that of Mary Cushing Astor.
In the May 28, 1945, issue, the name of Mr. Lockett is no
longer carried. New names appear: T. F. Mueller, Roland L.
Redmond; and in August of that year Vincent Astor is again
listed as chairman of the board, while the name of Mary
Cushing Astor is retained as a member.
No publication in America is so completely owned and
controlled by the big money interests as Newsweek, And its
policy shows it.
In the role of “public relations counsellor’* of the Morgan
Empire, Mr. Lamont has cultivated practically every leading
newspaper man, journalist, magazine writer, novelist and
molder of public opinion who showed himself willing to be
cultivated. Mr. Lamont’s outstanding success is the case of
Walter Lippmann, the boy wonder of Harvard, the radical
youth leader of his time, the renegade Socialist.
Of America’s most noted columnar writer it has been
written that after his round-the-world trip on the yacht of
Thomas Lamont he came home a changed man. He has never
been the same since. Mabel Dodge had said of the boy liberal
that “Walter is never, never going to lose an eye in a fight/*
but it could not be foreseen at the end of the first decade of
this century that in the 1930’s Lippmann would be espousing
“the comfortable idea that we are safe in the arms of Morgan/*
90
1000 AMERICANS
as Heywood Broun, a fellow Harvard traveler, wrote of his
colleague.
Even the magazine Time was conscious of certain influ¬
ences in the life of Lippmann, for after recounting that he
was making $54,329 a year and owned three houses, it con¬
cluded that he was “more apt to be on intimate terms with
Morgan partners, than with union leaders.” And there is a
certain grim humor in the fact that it was the son of a Morgan
partner who wrote: “Walter Lippmann constitutes an Ameri¬
can tragedy. Starting out as a radical and a socialist . . . Lipp¬
mann ended up by giving over his exceptional gifts to the
service of reaction.”
The author of this final indictment is Corliss Lamont.
How vast is Mr. Thomas Lamont’s power in the American
publishing field? This may never be disclosed. The House of
Morgan is itself an advertiser, but this is not the sort of ad¬
vertising which corrupts the American press. The corruption
of the American press, the use of America’s newspapers and
magazines for reaction (and Fascism), as William Allen White
pointed out, would come through the advertising agencies be¬
cause of. their new role as social, economic and political ad¬
visers to the corporations. Mr. Lamont and the House of
Morgan today control not only many of the biggest corpora¬
tions which advertise, but work through the biggest advertis¬
ing agencies which are directing the political advertising of
big business.
An investigation of the subject, producing volumes of
evidence, would require congressional action. Meanwhile,
from the obvious documentation, it is certain that Mr. Porter
Sargent is understating the situation when he writes:
“No man in the country has been more influential in
determining editorial and publishing and educational policies
these past twenty years than Thomas Lamont.”
CHAPTER 9
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES
There are a score of magazines in the United States which
have a circulation of a million copies or more. We read less
books and more magazines per capita than any other civilized
country.
The most circulated magazine in the world is Reader^s
Digest with more than 11,000,000 copies sold a month, and
probably 50,000,000 readers.
The table of magazine circulation given at the end of this
chapter includes the fourteen leading general circulation mag¬
azines, according to the advertising weekly. Tide, with two
additions by the present writer. In the third column of the
table is listed ownership, control or affiliation.
It will probably surprise the reader, as it actually sur¬
prised the writer when he had concluded his investigations and
made this table, to find that with the exception of Reader's
Digest and Look, every big magazine in America is owned or
controlled or affiliated with the biggest business interests of the
nation, including the House of Morgan and the National Asso¬
ciation of Manufacturers.
That the editorial policies of almost every one of the big
magazines has been in accordance with the thinking and policy
of the thousand men who also control most of America is
pretty obvious. The magazine press is no more a free press
than the newspaper press.
The Reader's Digest. A great tragic paradox of our time is
the Reader's Digest. It is not owned by any corporate or cor¬
rupting interests, nor does it invite corruption by taking ad¬
vertising and coming into contact with the public relations
propagandists of the multi-millionaire advertising agencies. It
is rich, successful, free of all fetters and influences, and never¬
theless it is as reactionary a force in America as any publica¬
tion.
91
92
1000 AMERICANS
Since I have already told the story of the Digest in my
book, “Facts and Fascism” (pp. 158-183), I shall not repeat
it here. The main fact is that the Digest is not a digest. It was
originally. Today, as the magazine investigating committee of
the National Council of Teachers of English showed docu¬
mentarily in its huge report (which was suppressed), the ma¬
jority of Digest articles are either “originals” produced by
Digest editors, or their editors* articles planted elsewhere, or
sundry items purchased by the Digest and planted in other
magazines so that it can say it skims the cream from all others,
digests it for the public. The political, anti-labor, reactionary,
controversial and pro-big business articles which fill a large
part of Readers Digest are nearly always originated by the
Digest,
If the Digest honestly had remained a digest, it could still
have had an editorial policy, evidenced by the items it selected
to reprint. This would have been more difficult to criticize.
But, as it is now run, its claim to being impartial is an insult
to all honest people.
The policy of Reader's Digest has always been anti-labor,
always reactionary. It was not until In Fact exposed the mag¬
azine in 1942 that its owner, DeWitt Wallace, took pains to
introduce an occasional article by a labor leader, notably
Philip Murray, or even a rare honest liberal, all for the pur¬
pose of confusing people who had protested. The DeWitt
Wallace policy is similar to that of the French restaurant-
keeper who also protested a belief in the equalitarian 50-50
principle: in making a stew for his customers he used one
rabbit—and one horse.
Scientific and elaborate studies have been made of the
contents of the Digest, year after year. The pro- and anti-labor
articles have been counted, measured for space, for passion.
College students, teachers, scientists have engaged in this work,
and the result has always been the same: the Digest has been
found to have a decided editorial policy, just as any commer¬
cial magazine; it has been found to favor the ruling minority,
spearheaded by the United States Chamber of Commerce and
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES 93
the NAM, and that it has never been fair to the vast liberal,
democratic American majority.
The most elaborate study of Reader*s Digest was made by
the National Council of Teachers of English, which was deeply
interested because the Digest is used in thousands of high
schools of the nation.
More than a year was spent on research, with hundreds
oE teachers participating. The most important conclusion
reached by the NCTE w^as that “the Digest is not a digest.**
This conclusion is important because the basis for use of
this magazine in the schools is its claim to'digesting the mag¬
azines of the country. If it is not a digest, it has no reason for
special favor in the halls of learning.
The National Council of Teachers of English discovered
that the majority of articles in the Digest either originated in
the editorial offices of the magazines, or were bought and
“planted” in other magazines, then reprinted. The report be¬
gins by stating that it will present no conclusions, but this is
an instance where the facts speak for themselves very clearly.
The report shows that the magazine most favored for “di¬
gesting” is the American Mercury. The Mercury was at one
time edited by Paul Palmer, now a Digest editor, and Law¬
rence E. Spivak, who remained as editor when Eugene Lyons
took Mr. Palmer’s place. Mr. Lyons has now been employed
in the editorial department of the Digest, and placed else¬
where.
An investigation of the contents of the American Mercury
during the Palmer-Spivak regime discloses the important fact
that the first writing in favor of an American fascist party and
movement appeared in this magazine. The writer was Law¬
rence Dennis, who used some of the same material for his
book “The Coming American Fascism” (Harper Sc Bros.,
1936), and who was later among the group indicted on the
charge of conspiracy to commit sedition—the only “intellect¬
ual” in the lot, as the newspapers reported. (The Government
is appealing the dismissal of the indictment.)
Mr. DeWitt Wallace, editor of Reader's Digest, indig-
94
1000 AMERICANS
nantly denied all charges that he himself was in favor of some
of the things Hitler and Mussolini had done, as In Fact
charged in 1942, and said statements attributed to him were
“unadulterated lies.” He could not, of course, deny the nu¬
merous articles he had selected which favored fascism—one in
particular defending Franco, and another pointing out what
was good in Nazi Germany.
In 1947, following a statement by Mr. O. John Rogge, the
government's prosecutor in the trial of the alleged seditionists,
Mr. Wallace was forced to admit that after Dennis had pub¬
lished his overt fascist articles in the American Mercury he had
been hired for editorial work on the Readers Digest.
Throughout the course of the war the Nazis made con¬
siderable use of articles in the Digest because they were good
for propaganda purposes. The Nazis quoted Reader's Digest^
with full credit, in the magazine 0(yerseas) K{id) which was
distributed free to American prisoners of war. Stars & Stripes
reported that the 805th Tank Destroyer Battalion had had
canisters fired at it from Nazi 105mm guns, and that these
contained reprints of Reader's Digest articles. And the present
writer has copies of Der Westkaempfer, issue of January 30,
1945, containing one of the many anti-Russian articles the
Reader's Digest printed which the Hitler propaganda machine
reprinted for the purpose of undermining the morale of the
American soldiers.
The National Council of Teachers of English devoted
itself largely to the editorial policy of Reader's Digest at home.
It stated in its report:
“It has been criticized as being anti-Semitic, anti-Negro,
anti-labor, anti-Roosevelt. It has been said that it does not
support the war effort and the unity of the United Nations.
How serious are these criticisms if true? ....
“Reading influences the lives of people. This is a reading
problem. Teachers must judge how serious the criticisms of the
Reader's Digest are and whether or not they are valid.”
There follows page after page of the evidence on which
the charges are based. Emphasis is placed on the fact almost the
95
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES
entire labor press of America has denounced the Digest as its
enemy. For example, the National Council of Teachers of
English report quotes the CIO News articles:
“There is proof aplenty that the Digest has sandwiched
lies, distortions and dangerous halftruths between innocent hu¬
man interest stuff and patter. In wartime this is a matter of
grave concern because of the tremendous power of the Digest
in moulding public opinion.” (This CIO report, incidentally,
was also used in a special edition sent to the hundreds of thou¬
sands of union men in the armed services, most of whom were
getting free copies of the Digest)
The National Council of Teachers of English report also
notes that William L. Shirer in an article on the Nazi use of
propaganda {Harper's, November, 1944) referred to the
0{verseas) K{id) use of a Digest item as very effective on the
morale of prisoners.
It notes that the Spanish fascist press, notably El Espanol
of Madrid, reprinted one of the many Russia-baiting articles
by Max Eastman, a Reader's Digest editor who had formerly
edited communist publications.
The National Council of Teachers of English report
further notes angry protests from a group of University of
Puerto Rico professors and Puerto Rico schoolteachers sent to
Mr. DeWitt Wallace because of the editorial policy of Reader's
Digest, which is stated as “anti-labor, anti-Roosevelt, anti-
United Nations and defeatist.”
No one who reads the full report made by the Council can
have any doubt about its report being an indictment.
Not only is it shown that the Reader's Digest is not a di¬
gest, but that it is a magazine with an editorial policy, and that
policy is definitely reactionary.
Ladies' Home Journal: Cyrus K. Curtis of the Curtis Pub¬
lishing Company, left a gross estate of $28,933,045 {Editor if
Publisher, November 13, 1943). He left this although he had
lost $42,000,000 in his newspaper ventures (according to the
Guild Reporter, January 15, 1942). On the occasion of the de-
96
1000 AMERICANS
mise of the Public Ledger a writer in The Nation said of Cur¬
tis and his newspaper partner, John C. Martin: ;j
“These men were without liberalism or vision, I had almost
said without conscience, certainly without understanding of the
real purposes of the American democracy, and were actuated only
by the motive of piling up more wealth in addition to the millions
that accrued from the Saturday Evening Post and the Ladies' Home
Journal. They ruined the historic New York Evening Post, as they
long ago killed the Public Ledger, , . . Their^s is the point of view
of big business, of the rich and the privileged. Their motto is
America by big business, for big business, with big business.’*
Curtis left his holdings to his only daughter, Mrs. Edward
Curtis Bok, and her son, Cary William Bok. But before and
after his death the dominating influence in the Curtis Pub¬
lishing Company was Walter Deane Fuller. It was he who
made the Ladies* Home Journal, the Saturday Evening Post,
and other Curtis publications the spokesman for the trade asso¬
ciations to which he belonged. He is a great orator, but his one
theme throughout the fourteen years of the New Deal was de¬
creased taxation for corporations. He was rewarded for this
brilliant work in December, 1940, when the “Congress of
American Industry,” as the National Association of Manufac¬
turers calls its annual meetings, elected him president for
1941. The duPonts, the Weirs, the Girdlers, the Sloans and
the Pews were unanimous in honoring the great magazine
man.
Among the many notable posts which Mr. Fuller holds
are: chairman of the finance committee. National Association
of Manufacturers; member of the Better America Committee
of the NAM; member of the governing board of the NIIC, the
propaganda agency of the NAM; a member of its program
committee; and chairman of the NAM Committee on Co¬
operation with Education.
Mr. Fuller is also president of the National Publishers*
Association, the magazine counterpart of the American News¬
paper Publishers* Association.
The president of the Curtis Publishing Co. {Ladies* Home
Journal, Saturday Evening Post, Country Gentleman, Holiday,
97
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES
Jack 6* Jill, with some nine or ten million circulation) was
president of the NAM, is president of the NPA, was one of the
notables who revived the NAM, is now chairman or member
of NAM committees and on the governing board of the NIIC.
No newspaper owner has ever let affiliations of this nature
and their influence on what he publishes become known to his
readers.
Woman's Home Companion: The magazines devoted to
housewives without exception have entered the field of pol¬
itics for the purpose of spreading the propaganda of their
owners. Although Woman's piorne Companirn usually sticks
to its muttons and other culinary subjc cts, it has followed its
rivals, Ladies' Home Journal and Good Housekeepings in pro¬
moting what all claim is the interest of the consumer and is
actually the interest of the advertiser who seeks to make money
by exploiting the consumer.
The propaganda line goes all the way to the fiction writer.
To my knowledge there are no instances of big magazines in
the United States pennitting a fiction writer to tell a story in
which a worker is right and an employer is wrong, but every
one of the big magazines will permit a writer of fiction to use
its columns to attack labor. Here, for instance, is an example
from the Woman's Home Companion of May, 1943:
“Nonsense,” said Bob. “Our people are satisfied. They
need no unions.”
The story is called “Murder For a Million” and is by
Clarence Budington Kelland, one of the most noted writers
of commercial fiction in the world. But he is also one of the
most reactionary and one of the most popular, and therefore
an effective propagandist.
In the July, 1943, issue, the main article is “Henry Ford
Talks at 80,” a good human interest story which was advertised
with the headline: “Mrs. Ford was so interested that she used
to sit up all night and hold the light for me.” It had the
woman angle. But it also had something else. It disclosed, for
those who are in the business, that this magazine had joined
the news services and the newspapers in getting and printing
98
1000 AMERICANS
the annual Ford interview—^with pictures. It is part of the
P'ord publicity campaign, it goes with Ford ads, and most pub¬
lications taking this money obliged with this annual puffery.
In its issue of February, 1947, the Companion perhaps
surprised its readers by what looked like a modern crusade
against patent medicines. It featured, and advertised through¬
out the land, an article called “The Truth About Reducing
Drugs,*’ a powerful and valuable expose of the thyroid, ben¬
zedrine and belladonna patent medicine men. To the pro¬
fession it was just another rousing attack on the man-eating
shark.
To keep up the myth of freedom and courage publishers,
especially former radicals like Hearst and former crusading
publications now owned by the corporations, frequently break
out with attacks on fakers who do not advertise, or politicians
who control nothing, or public enemies who are generalized
and never named. The man-eating shark is the safest of all
objects of attack, and so it was again in the case of the Com¬
panion's war with unadvertised thyroid pills.
But cosmetics are sacred. The House of Morgan, which
helps direct the Companion, also directs a face cream corpora¬
tion against which the FTC once issued a fraud order. No com¬
mercial newspaper or magazine mentioned that one.
McCall's: The case of McCall’s is similar to that of its
rival, the Ladies’ Home Journal, Both were published for at
least one year by men who were presidents of tlie NAM (which
permits only one 12-month term) and both were bound to the
NAM by publishers who are among the 25 great powers be¬
hind the NAM.
The NAM in 1935 declared itself for a “continuing cam¬
paign” against the Wagner Act, and when the case went to the
Supreme Court it elected William B. Warner, president of
McCall’s, its own president. Mr. Warner, like Mr. Fuller, was
one of the original financial backers of the NAM from the
days of its “reconversion” in 1933.
Among the confidential documents which the La Follette
Committee found in its investigation there is one stating that
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES 99
as late as 1937, during the reign of William B. Warner of
McCalVs, it was still the purpose of the NAM to break strikes,
and to employ a new weapon, public opinion, for that purpose.
The confession was then made that it is the newspapers and
radio which make or break strikes today; and of course the
powers which controlled the means of communications would
naturally come out winners. Mr. Warner’s prospectus for 1937
contained these lines; '‘Now, more than evei before, strikes are
being won or lost in the newspapers and over the radio. The
swing of public opinion has always i)eeri a major factor in labor
disputes.” (See Appendix 19.)
Mr. Warner went about raising the biggest fund in the
history of the public relations committee of the NAM. He de¬
plored the small amounts available annually until his time in
office, and he was the first to achieve three quarters of a mil¬
lion. However, the documents seized by the La Follette Com¬
mittee reveal that in addition to a program of using press and
radio to break strikes—by perverting public opinion to favor
the employer—it was also the plan of the NAM to use pressure
upon all the means of advertising to get space free for its
propaganda. Being a publisher himself, Mr. Warner knew that
the advertiser lays down the law, and he figured that he could
get his fellow NAM leaders who are heavy advertisers to lay
down the law to the newspapers, the magazines, the billboard
owners, and the radio. Mr. Warner had only $750,000 to
spend, but that money was used merely for campaigning: the
news items, editorials, cartoons, speeches, pictures, and other
NAM publicity achievements cost nothing. All that big cor¬
porations had to do was to tell the press and radio what they
wanted. They got millions of free space and time. Mr. Warner
wrote at the end of 1937 that he had obtained $1,250,000 in
free billboard ads, 2000 pages of newspaper space, worth a mil¬
lion, free, and a million dollars worth of time over 270 radio
stations. The La Follette documents are an expose of corrup¬
tion which no apologist has dared mention.
Good Housekeeping: At a time Mr. Hearst and his $200,-
000,000 publishing empire were in difficulties—and largely in
100
1000 AMERICANS
control of the Rockefeller Chase National and other banks—
some of the enterprises were earning big money. Good House^
keeping usually earns $2,000,000 a year. It was devoted to
women’s beauty and household affairs, also popular com¬
mercial fiction for which it paid large sums. It stated (in 1946)
that '‘to a certain extent the ability to pay top rates insured a
magazine consideration from the best writers. Good writers,
like good workers of any kind, prefer to market their wares
where the rewards are the greatest.” The price of fiction is this
Hearst magazine’s measure of literature.
Inasmuch as Good Housekeeping keeps out of politics as
a rule, there would be no reason for many words about this
mass-circulation magazine were it not for an incident which
illustrated the relationship of the NAM, big business in gen¬
eral, bad medicine, advertising, and the art of fooling the
public.
Good Housekeeping had since 1902 guaranteed its ad¬
vertisers. To many it gave seals of approval. However, federal
authorities investigated both the advertising and the items ad¬
vertised and charged that the former were frequently fraudu¬
lent, the latter frequently either fraudulent, harmful or useless.
Finally the Federal Trade Commission, after wrangling
with the Hearst people for years, issued the following press
release:
“Hearst Magazines, Inc., 57th Street and 8th Avenue, New
York, of which Good Housekeeping is a wholly owned subsidiary,
is charged in a complaint issued by the FTC with misleading and
deceptive acts and practices in the issuance of Guarantees, Seals
of Approval, and the publication in its advertising pages of grossly
exaggerated and false claims for products advertised therein.”
A consumers’ service organization. Consumers’ Union,
had tested many items advertised in the Hearst magazine, and
bearing the Hearst seal, and found that frequently “products
bearing one or another of the Good Housekeeping seals were
inferior, or potentially harmful, or overpriced, or otherwise
poor buys.” In parenthesis it might be stated here that there
is no relation between advertising and value, no relation be-
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES lOI
tween “brand names*’ and value, and very frequently the lesser
known or the unknown and unadvertised article is greatly su¬
perior to the one on which millions have been spent to sell the
public.
The Good Housekeeping case involved all advertising:
therefore the entire newspaper and magazine publishing in¬
dustry, and a large part of big business. It aroused all the ele¬
ments which place profits above public welfare. The battle in
behalf of the Hearst magazines was led by Robert Lund, a di¬
rector of the NAM, its former president, one of its reorgan¬
izers, and the head of Lambert Pharmacal Co., makers of Lis-
terine, which Good Housekeeping had advertised extensively.
He had fought the Federal Trade Commission to a standstill.
At one time the Federal Trade Commission announced that
Lund had agreed to “cease and desist” from advertising Lis-
terine as permanently relieving or curing dandruff, or killing
dandruff germs, or getting “at the cause,” or having “marked
curative qualities.” Consumers* Union and the then ad-less
newspaper PM had published the news. In fact, PM gave it a
page, whereas it may be safely said that of America’s 1750
newspapers no less than 99% suppressed this news.
A secret meeting was held in the home of George E. So-
kolsky, who was then on the New York Herald Tribune (later
on the New York Sun, and syndicated by Hearst), who had
once been secretly on the payroll of the NAM, working in the
anti-labor field with Tom Girdler and Ernest Weir, two im¬
portant men of the NAM.
Notables at the Sokolsky meeting were J. B. Matthews of
the Dies Committee; F. J. Schlink of Consumers’ Research—
a private outfit not to be confused with the Consumers’
Union; Henry F. Bristol of Bristol-Myers Pharmacal Co., a
patent medicine man; Mr. Lund, and a representative of
Young & Rubicam, one of the Big Four of the advertising
world.
Some of the heads of the biggest business organizations in
the world, the patent medicine men, advertising’s spokesman,
and one of the top seven magazines got together and planned
102
1000 AMERICANS
what to do. Matthews declared he would get the Dies Com-
mitttee to issue a terrific smear against all public welfare or¬
ganizations; Sokolsky outlined plans for publicity; the busi¬
nessmen decided to swing the magazine and newspaper press
into line by withdrawing advertising from those which did not
toe the line; and the meeting dispersed. Within a few days
the front pages of the newspapers carried one of the hundred
or more Dies Committee sensations—and falsehoods. Among
the organizations redbaited were all which had favored pure
food and drugs and decent wages and decent prices, notably:
League of Women Shoppers, Consumers* Union, Committtee
for Boycott against Japanese Aggression; New York Con¬
sumers’ Council; Farmer Milk Cooperative. The newspapers
did a great job for Hearst’s Good Housekeeping and the vast
and complex business enterprises associated with it. The
powerful interests associated with patent medicines showed
they could reach all the way into the NAM and into Congress
itself. That they affected most of the press also was no surprise.
American Magazine: When the Crowell Company got
hold of this magazine, which had been the great muckraking
monthly to which Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Finley Peter
Dunne and other writers contributed, they changed its char¬
acter—^just as other wealthy interests made Romance Magazine
out of the crusading Everybodys. The American, instead of
being caviar to the general, was to become opium for the
people. Its policy was to repeat over and over, many times each
month, and year after year, the Horatio Alger, Jr., story of how
the poor and unfortunate boy (and sometimes girl) made good
—good meaning good money.
For years the American poured out its dope. It did not
engage in political propaganda, as did Collier's, the other gen¬
eral magazine of the Crowell house. It seemed to realize the
fact that it was nothing but a mouthpiece of the gilded status
quo of the Morgan Empire when in an advertisement {Time,
February 3, 1941) it said of itself: Among magazines, the
American Magazine is a particularly shining example of that
discontent with status quo which has made this the most pro-
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES
103
gressive nation on earth.’* But lest anyone think this was mor¬
ganatic treason, it hastily added: ‘‘Latest proof of this is a
revolutionary contribution to advertising. . . In that depart¬
ment at least there was no stale status quo of sterility and stag¬
nation; there was in fact revolution! The American would cut
pages five different ways to let advertisers get better position!
In 1944, the yellow press, led by the Newspaper Axis
(Hearst-Howard-Patterson-McCormick) headlined the news of
Senator—and Vice Presidential candidate—Truman’s Novem¬
ber, 1942, article in the American in which he had attacked
“selfish fights for power, the endless bickerings and dissension”
in the Roosevelt regime which placed America “in danger of
losing the war in Washington.” This same press, of course, did
not explain the circumstances of the Senator’s writing the
article or tell the whole truth. This was that the Senator had
indeed written a criticism for the purpose of speeding the war
effort, but the magazine had misused it for smearing the
Democratic administration. Truman did not try to kill the
article when he asked for an injunction, he was merely trying
to get his correct version printed and not the “unapproved
version of his views cooked up by the magazine.” Stated the
future President:
“The American Magazine came to me and asked if I
would consider writing an article on the situation as it existed
in production.
“I scribbled out an outline, and sent it for checking of
facts to the staff of the Special Senate Committee to Investigate
the National Defense Program of which I was chairman. Then
my wife, who was acting as my secretary, went over it with me.
“The American Magazine men rewrote the article and
sent it back to me. I scratched out things I didn’t like, elimi¬
nated the $40 words and sent it back to them.
“Then word came to me that the magazine was planning
to publish an article differing from the one I had approved,
and I applied for an injunction. , . . That made the magazine
change its mind. The article was finally published as I had ap¬
proved it.”
104
1000 AMERICANS
This attack, frequently with the use of ghosts, against the
Roosevelt policy continued. In April, 1945, the American ran
an article by Senator Byrd on “The Government’s Waste of
Manpower.*’ In March, 1946, it ran another of its anti-labor
articles (“Labor’s Feather Beds—What They Cost You”) and
the railroad workers’ organ. Labor (February 16), quoted the
former director of the Oflice of Defense Transportation on it
under the subhead “Lie Exploded by (Joseph B.) Eastman.”
On September 15, 1946, In Fact published exclusively a confi¬
dential memorandum from the editor of the American giving
a line on its political policies. It says in major part:
OFFICE OF THE PUBLISHER
THE AMERICAN MAGAZINE
(Confidential)
The attached memorandum from Sumner Blossom, editor of
The American Magazine, was originally intended solely for the in¬
formation and guidance of our oxvn editorial staff. It is of such
potential interest, however, that I have obtained permission to give
it limited circulation among some of our business friends, with the
understanding that it is not to be further circulated or quoted,
INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
THE AMERICAN MAGAZINE
To: Members of the Editorial Staff
From: Sumner Blossom
Information reaching me leads me to believe that we will have
a period of communist dictated labor unrest in the United States
beginning, perhaps, in September of this year. This information
suggests that communist dominated unions of American workers
will strike and threaten to strike at a time suitable to Moscow. The
purpose is two-fold:
First, Moscow wants to be able to say to the rest of the world
that Russia is solidly going this way, while “the decadent democ¬
racies are torn by internal unrest and strife.” This will give Rus¬
sia a talking point in her international negotiations of the next
year. Russia realizes only too well that as our domestic problems
increase our voice weakens in the councils of the world, and as
our voice weakens Russia's chances of getting her own way increase.
Second, while Russia certainly does not want war at this time
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES
105
she is realistic enough to recognize the possibility of conflict in
the future. Her government dominated publications have noted
with increasing satisfaction the sharp reductions in our armed
services, and have urged the immediate withdrawal of our troops
from “all friendly countries.” Some of the countries named are
the Philippines, France, China, Belgium, Holland, Iceland,
Greece, India and Indonesia. It has even been suggested that our
failure to make such withdrawals would be evidence on our part of
“aggressive imperialism.”
I am not suggesting that I think war between the United
States and Russia is inevitable. I am saying, however, that Russia
has a definite international program, which, at this moment, she
intends to carry through, and is prepared to go to war eventually if,
in her judgment, her ends can only be accomplished in that way.
As a step in her long range program she is centering her major
attention this fall on the United States. It is not unlikely that at
the same time there will be some strife in the United Kingdom,
because the British, too, have communist dominated unions.
It is my belief that the situation in this country will be touched
off by the maritime strike. There is good reason to believe the
leaders of the seamen's unions might not have so readily acquiesced
to the demands of Phil Murray for a truce with the steamship
operators this spring had the timing been better. As I understand
it, when President Truman threatened to use the Navy to move
the merchant ships, and the union leaders countered with a request
for support from foreign unions, they were informed that this sup¬
port could not be forthcoming until, at least, the fall. When the
truce was reached the leaders of the unions involved made it quite
plain that the settlement was not at all satisfactory to them and
indicated that the truce was nothing more than that. . . .
[The next three paragraphs deal with strikes, John L. Lewis,
Earl Browder, the possibility of Lewis, Murray and Green being
“on one side and the communists on the other” in nationwide
strikes, and related ideas.]
It is my belief that if a series of communistic strikes comes, and
our government adopts the policy of compromise or conciliation
because of the coming elections, we will have taken one more step
towards the loss of our present system. If, on the other hand, the
government meets the challenge head-on, using whatever means are
available to break the strikes, and our Congress enacts legislation to
prevent their recurrence, we will have washed out the possibility of
Russia wearing us down by a process of attrition.
Once again I remind you that Russia does not want war today.
She, like every other nation in Europe and Asia, has suffered heavily
in the war. We, alone, have enough weapons and stamina to fight a
major war today, but we are demobilized. Russia is rebuilding and
expanding her industry today and looking to the future.
106
1000 AMERICANS
All of this is why we published the article '‘Communism is
Un-American" by Cardinal Spellman in our July issue. And this is
why we propose from time to time to carry articles of similar
import.
Cosmopolitan: Being a Hearst publication, this magazine
is used for Hearstian purposes, as are all the newspapers, news
services and other magazines owned or controlled by the Lord
of San Simeon. Many people recognize Hearst newspapers for
what they are, few connect the magazines with Hearst’s yellow
journalism.
A poll of Washington correspondents, the upper bracket of
American journalism, while voting the Chicago Tribune the
worst paper in the country, placed ahead of this individual
journal the entire chain of Hearst papers. Hearst got 714
points, and the Chicago Tribune was second with 455. {See
Appendix 10.)
Still more interesting was a poll conducted in many parts
of the country which showed that 27.3% of the persons asked
considered Hearst a bad influence for America, only 10.7%
considering him good. In those cities in which Hearst pub¬
lishes newspapers the vote was much higlier: 43.3% of all asked
said Hearst was a bad influence, 10.5% said he was good,
46.2% did not know.
The Cosmopolitan had been one of the powerful muck¬
raking magazines of the early part of the century. In 1910 it
published the last series of articles against graft and crooked
politics. This was written by Charles Edward Russell, and the
concluding chapters, which Hearst then approved, declared
that only the Marxian idea, socialism, would put an end to
corruption. Today the Cosmopolitan and all the rest of the
Hearst publications devote much of their space to fighting the
Marxians.
It is for this reason that the Nazi propaganda ministry
found the Cosmopolitan useful during the Second World War.
The British Monitoring Service of Axis Radios included
in its report of February 9 and February 12, 1942, references
to a Hearst news service and the Cosmopolitan, as follows:
THE SEVEN BIG MONTHLY MAGAZINES 107
NAZI RADIO February 9, 1942
Summary
E. D. Ward (Edward Delaney)
“an American citizen who cannot be connected with National
Socialism/' reviewed the Berlin press of the day. . . . Ward quoted
the Berlin press, which is printing excerpts from an article in the
. . . Cosmopolitan magazine. . . . Ward showed the satisfaction
of the papers (Voelkischer Beobachter, etc.) with the Cosmopolitan
article. . . .
A talk— “the time bomb” —in English, speaker's name not
given.
This was a lengthy quotation from an article in the December
issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, written by Eugene Lyons.
Lyons, the speaker said, showed the Red Conspiracy in the
United States. There is a Stalinist Fifth Column in the defense
industry and everywhere. Lyons points out the defense stoppages
caused by the communists. The communists have organized a net
of underground sabotage.
And this is the picture of the development the Nazi speaker
gave on the basis of Lyons’ prophesy:
An OGPU ruling America; agitation by communist soapbox
orators; riots; rebellions; and then the American citizen will sud¬
denly awake into the bolshevik paradise. The time bomb is ticking
everywhere in the United States, thanks to “Franklin Stalino
Roosevelt.”
On February 9 “E. D. Ward” . . . remarked that the Berlin
press was now printing excerpts from an article ... in the Feb¬
ruary issue of Cosmopolitan magazine. . . . An hour later there
was a complete talk in English . . . which dealt with an article in
the December issue of Cosmopolitan written by Eugene Lyons. . . .
It is extremely significant that Berlin shortwave radio seems to be
using more and more Hearst material. . . .
The Lyons article is a typical piece of Hearst Russophobia
which warns America against the far-reaching bolshevik menace. . . .
NAZI RADIO February 12, 1942
Summary
Jane Anderson—talk in English—“Truth Will Prevail”—
8:15 p.M.
The only remarkable point in this talk was the reference to
(and reverence for) the INS (International News Service, the Hearst
press agency), which the speaker said had “always maintained the
highest standard” of news reporting. . . .
108
1000 AMERICANS
It should be noted that the Eugene Lyons quoted is a
former United Press correspondent who in Moscow was at first
redder than the reds; he propagandized for the communistic
way of life and had an answer for every criticism of his doubt¬
ing colleagues. In 1929 Lyons filed a story which the Soviet
government denounced as a fake. Whereupon Roy Howard
fired Lyons and Lyons in turn publicly denounced Roy
Howard. But a decade later he had become such a Soviet-
baiter that he was able to write propaganda against Russia not
only for Hearst but for his former personal enemy, Mr. Howard.
The entire Hearst newspaper press published a whole
series of propaganda articles by the Nazi leaders.
^ ^ *
From the foregoing pages, which ought to be elaborated
into a stout volume by one of the University presses, it will be
seen that a few men, whose interests are identical with that
of the National Association of Manufacturers, control the big
magazines. Here is a summary of the situation:
LARGEST CIRCULATION MONTHLY MAGAZINES *
Publication Circulation
Ladies* Home Journal 4,166,937
Woman*s Home Companion 3,543,977
McCalVs 3,425,357
Good Housekeeping 2,533,478
American 2,480,568
Cosmopolitan 2,045,930
Redhook 1,547,094
Ownership, Control, In¬
terest or Affiliation
W. D. Fuller of NAM
Crowell, J. P. Morgan
Warner of NAM
Hearst
Crowell, J. P. Morgan
Hearst
Crowell, J. P. Morgan
* Figures from various issues of Tide, the advertising magazine,
1946-47. Readers Digest circulation, 11,000,000; 9i/2 million printed
in English; 7 million sold in the U, S. and Canada—“Little Won¬
der,'* by John Bainbridge.
109
the seven big monthly magazines
LARGEST CIRCULATION, WEEKLIES
Life
Saturday Evening Post
Collier's
Look
Time
Liberty
Newsweek
3,904,363 Luce, J. P. Morgan
3,396,236 Fuller, NAM
2,837,627 Crowell, J. P. Morgan
1,911,405 Cowles
1,194,708 Luce, J. P. Morgan
1,168,932 Atlas Corporation
605,573 Harriman, Morgan, Astor
MISCELLANEOUS \
Farm Journal (monthly) 2,700,000 Pew of NAM
Pathfinder (fortnightly) 1,000,000 Pew of NAM
f These circulation figures have been reported at various times.
CHAPTER 10
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
Among the seven big monthly magazines there is not one de¬
voted to news, or national affairs, politics, or the general
welfare: the four leaders cater exclusively to women, the fifth
is a general magazine, the remaining two are for the most part
dispensers of fair to middling fiction. On the other hand, all
the seven big weekly magazines are aimed at the manufacture
of public opinion.
Their 15,000,000 circulation may reach as many indivi¬
duals as the total newspaper circulation of 50,000,000. No one
questions the fact that the public has more faith in magazines
than in the daily press, and for this reason the seven may be
said to constitute a great power in public affairs.
In no less than four of the seven there is an interest by
the House of Morgan; another is directly linked with an official
of the NAM, another is owned outright by Atlas Corporation,
and only one is not directly ruled by the big money: it is Look,
published by Cowles, and subject merely to advertising and
big business pressures, as is every publication which feeds on
the same rich sources.
Largest in circulation, if not in influence, is Life, the
Luce picture weekly which in 1947 claimed 5,000,000 circu¬
lation and, because it featured pictures, which even illiterates
could understand, and not reading matter, which required
some literacy, it claimed not the usual five, but seven, “readers’*
for each'copy. With Time's million circulation and at least
5,000,000 readers, and Fortune's 20 readers for each |1 copy,
and the March of Time playing in 9,000 theaters to 20,000,000
persons. Luce can very well claim that almost the entire liter¬
ate adult population, and a huge segment of the illiterate, are
his audience.
All the Luce avenues of communication have been traveled
by his reactionary views. The most revealing document in the
110
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
111
history of Henry Luce’s political development is his address
to the graduating class of the University of Chattanooga in
which he proposed the rule of nations by an aristocratic elite.
(“Education and Aristocracy,” University of Chattanooga, April
21, 1936.) The idea is not new. It was heard in Greek and
Roman days, and it was given considerable circulation when
Benito Mussolini declared that his guiding light was the
philosopher Pareto.
At the very same time Mr. Luce was preaching the “aristo¬
cratic elite” to colleges, Mr. Lawrence Dennis was preaching
the rule of a fascist elite in the pages of the Am''rican Mercury,
(Ten years later Prof. James Burnham was to revive tlie theory
of the rule of the elite in Mr. Luce’s Lx]e magazine. Musso¬
lini did not hesitate to liken his adaptation of the theory to
Hitler’s Der Fuehrerprinzip, but there is no evidence in the
writings of Messrs. Luce, Dennis and Burnham that a similarity
at least exists.)
Mr. Luce also used the pages of Life as a sounding board
for an aggressive American imperialistic program which had
obvious similarities to various fascist programs, and which he
called patriotically “The American Century.”
In his June 9, 1941, issue Mr. Luce published one of the
many articles written by the late Chicago packer and former
ambassador to Belgium, John Cudahy. It was in the form of
an interview with Hitler, and it pleaded the Nazi cause.
In his report to his chief at the Department of Justice,
Mr. Rogge elaborated on the plan at Hitler headquarters of
planting Hitler interviews in the American press for the pur¬
pose of influencing world affairs. Mr. Rogge’s report details
the planting of one such article in the Hearst papers. The
Rogge document states that Otto Dietrich of the Propaganda
Ministry and von Ribbentrop decided to perpetrate a “kolos-
sal” hoax on the people of the world by telling them, at the
time the Nazi forces were marching into France, that Paris
would not be occupied, that Britain would not be attacked,
and that all Hitler wanted was an equivalent of the Monroe
Doctrine.
112
1000 AMERICANS
The false interview with Hitler was written in the Propa¬
ganda Ministry, the Rogge document states, and was then
planted on the dean of the Hearst correspondents, Karl von
Wiegand. The Rogge report states: *'Von Wiegand began his
account of his alleged interview with this: ‘With the German
Armies Nearing Paris, June 14 (1941)—“The Americas to
Americans, Europe to the Europeans.” This reciprocal basic
Monroe Doctrine, mutually observed, declared Adolf Hitler
to me here. . . ”
This is but one of the scores of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,
Salazar and other interviews with fascist heads of states which
have been planted by the fascist propaganda bureaus in the
world press. If Mr. Luce did not know that the Cudahy Hitler
interview was one of the scores arranged and inspired for
propaganda purposes, then he is probably the only editor ig¬
norant of the facts of life.
But Mr. Luce apparently did know that there was a pur¬
pose in this Hitler interview because he published at the head
of it a disclaimer which said in part:
“This spring Life commissioned John Cudahy ... to write a
series of articles about Nazi Germany and its war aims. Two weeks
ago he was accorded an interview with Adolf Hitler. . . .
“Li/e is well aware of its grave responsibility in printing this
article at such a critical time. It does so because it is confident its
readers can intelligently recognize this interview for what it really
is—an essential part of Hitler's political strategy of ‘softening up’
the U.S. with large denials of aggressive intentions.
'‘Life suspects that Hitler chose this particular time for his
interview because he hoped it would undercut the President’s
speech. . .
The Hitler item appeared in Life before the United
States was actually at war with Hitlerism. Throughout the war
the newspaper and magazine press with the exception only of
three nondescript publications which were suppressed, sup¬
ported not only their own countries, but all the Allies regard¬
less of their systems of government.
In 1947, however, men in public life and certain news¬
papers were calling for a third World War, this one to destroy
113
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
the former Ally of the United States, and the nation which
did most of the fighting and suffered most of the losses in
World War IL Former Governor Earle of Pennsylvania pub¬
licly stated he favored immediate use of the atomic bomb to
destroy the Soviet Union.
Historians, however, will discover that the first clarion
call for a holy crusade of the Western Democracies for the
third World War was sounded while the second was still in
progress, and that it appeared in the pages of a Luce publica¬
tion.
The author was William C. Bullitt, onetime ambassador
to Moscow, and onetime ambassador to France. The date was
September 4, 1944. The editorial introduction called Mr. Bul¬
litt “a special Life correspondent” who had gone to Italy where
“he was granted interviews with well informed and authorita¬
tive personages, among them Pope Pius XII.” There was more
than an inference that Bullitt was quoting the Pope as favor¬
ing what was euphemistically called a holy crusade and what
may some day become an atomic struggle in which not only
the U.S.S.R. but also the U.S.A. will be destroyed.
This proposal to divide the world into a Western and an
Eastern bloc, and to fight it out for control, was later taken
up by Winston Churchill, whose writings were purchased by
Life and the New York Times, and eventually by leaders
throughout the world. Mr. Luce may therefore point with
journalistic pride to the fact that one of his publications was
the first to propose World War III.
Almost all the Luce writers of note follow the Luce line,
just as all Hearst writers must obey the daily orders which
come over the teletype to Hearst newspapers and magazines
from the Lord of San Simeon. Ex-Ambassador Bullitt is not
an exception.
The salient facts in the more recent history of this Luce
writer are revealed by his onetime colleague. Ambassador
Dodd, in his book, “Ambassador Dodd’s Diary.” Dodd was
one of the few men in American diplomacy who stood up to
Fascism. He had a difficult time.
114
1000 AMERICANS
The Dodd Diary tells how Bullitt sent Marcel Knecht,
editor of Le Matin, to him to propose a Franco-German alli¬
ance aimed at joint action against Russia. Dodd was asked to
use his good offices with President Roosevelt to approve this
plan. Other pressures were brought on the Ambassador to
Berlin. In his published Diary, Mr. Dodd says:
**l felt compelled to report the account fof Bullitt intrigue
against Russia and for Germany] as given me by the French Am¬
bassador [to Berlin, Francois-Poncet], Later, or about the same
time, when the new Italian Ambassador came here directly from
Moscow, we were told that Bullitt had become attracted to Fascism
before leaving Moscow . . (Page 372).
The Dodd Diary declares that the Chamberlain govern¬
ment in Britain and the Nazis and Bullitt favored dividing
the world, with Germany dominating all of Europe. Japan
was to control Asia. Bullitt told Dodd he favored Japan seizing
the Siberian peninsula and Vladivostok. When Dodd protested
that this would deny Russian access to the Pacific, Bullitt re¬
plied, “That makes no difference.'* Dodd wrote in his diary:
“I was amazed at this kind of talk from a responsible diplo¬
mat. . . . The President must know the man’s mentality, but
if so, how could he Iiave appointed him ambassador to Soviet
Russia.'*
There are other references in the Dodd Diary proving that
while Bullitt was in Moscow he intrigued with the French,
Germans and British there to form alliances to destroy Rus¬
sia.
His main job, however, was to destroy the Franco-Rus-
sian treaty. Dodd says (page 309) that Bullitt condemned “co¬
operation between England, France and the Balkan states in
the hope of bringing Russia into a moderate policy and keeping
the peace of Europe.** Bullitt also “went to a strategic person
in the French government** and “defeated the Russian nego¬
tiations** for a loan. Dodd concludes: “it seemed unusual for
an American ambassador to Russia to defeat Russo-French
negotiations.**
This intrigue by Bullitt reached a climax when Bullitt left
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
115
Moscow and went to work in Paris for the defeat of the French
treaty with Russia. Ambassador Dodd (page 372) had to report
the Bullitt intrigue to Roosevelt, and to correct the assump¬
tion Bullitt gave in this undercover job that he, Bullitt, was
acting for the President. “My position is difficult. ... I cannot
resign,” wrote Dodd, now inclined to believe “the Washington
newspaper story (saying Bullitt) is in full sympathy with Nazi
ideas” (page 372).
The Bullitt and Cudahy articles in the Luce press are
but two examples of whole series of similar items which appear
year after year—all of them signed by big names, all of them
preaching a reactionary philosophy.
Mr. Luce also employs in his three leading magazines a
host of bright young men, many of whom have graduated
from these offices in the past twenty-some years and sought an
outlet for their views elsewhere.
From the writings of Luce men now appearing in other
magazines and in books, the reader of Luce publications can
learn that there is considerable strife in the home offices, just
as there is in the Hearst and Howard offices. There is appar¬
ently daily talk of suppression, and of editing of articles to suit
the known viewpoint of the owners. In other words, nothing
is different in the Luce offices than in the offices of most of the
major newspapers of America.
Foreign correspondents who have graduated from Time,
Life and Fortune have stated publicly—in books, in magazine
articles, and over the radio—that their reports have failed to
appear, or that their statements have been so edited that a
wrong impression was given the reader.
When Time-Life correspondent Richard Lauterbach wrote
“These Are The Russians,” a book which pro and anti re¬
viewers alike agreed was factual and objective, Nation reviewer
Alexander Kendrick pointed out that “if Time and Life had
printed half of what he [Lauterbach] had sent them (and what
appears here) even Mrs. Luce might have learned something
about the ‘inscrutable' and ‘mysterious’ Russians she seems to
want so badly to fight. . . . For instance, Mr. Lauterbach has
116
1000 AMERICANS
a chapter which he calls ‘The World From Moscow/ and which
Life refused to print, although it was intended as an answer
to William C. Bullitt’s Life article, ‘The World From Rome,’
which Mr. Luce liked so much. .. /*
Again, there is the case of Theodore H. White and Annalee
Jacoby, whose reports from China apparently contradicted
the pattern in Mr. Luce’s mind—Mr. Luce was born in China,
knows there are two Chinas, one fascist, the other anti-fascist,
and years ago decided which China he wants triumphant.
Therefore, when Luce published a special leading article on
China, he did not use the materials supplied by White, “a
correspondent of the highest reliability,” and printed the
Kuomintang and other views. Luce used material supplied by
Lin Yutang and Congressman Walter H. Judd, whose state¬
ments are also disproved by the former head of the OWI office
in China, Richard Watts, Jr. {New Republic, December 3,
1945). Watts states that Luce tossed aside “the careful, factual
reporting of one of his ablest correspondents because it does
not happen to fit in with the political line of the boss,” and
suggested that other excellent foreign observers, notably Jack
Belden, John Hersey, Charles Wertenbacker, Robert Sherrod,
Will Lang, John Scott, Lauterbach and White are frequently
used as window-dressing, whereas other reports, ‘‘less plausible,”
are “rewritten and recolored in the home office” and “set the
authentic tone and express the Luce party line.”
In other words the Luce magazine press does the same as
the ordinary newspaper press.
By a rare coincidence, the Luce line in China is in com¬
plete conformity with the policy of the House of Morgan,
which has a large interest in Chinese loans.
Time: A large percentage of the 5,000,000 persons who
read 1,000,000 copies of Time every week are under the im¬
pression that they are getting something better than the news¬
papers; they believe that this magazine gives them a fairer
and more honest report of the events of the world, is a better
guide to the formation of their opinions and views. But it can
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES 117
be stated on the authority of none other than the editors of
Time itself that Time is biased and prejudiced.
On July 14, 1941, Time stated in an editorial note: **Time
makes no claim of being unbiased and impartial. Its editors
make no bones about their bias. . .
Of course Time added that this was “bias in favor of
democracy and other prejudices which they share with their
fellow Americans.”
It concluded: “But Time does set as its goal to be fair in
reporting and never to take sides in partisan affairs.”
The evidence, however, is clear that the first part of the
editorial statement is true: Time is biased and prejudiced.
As for the second part, it is a matter for every reader to judge
from the facts.
Time is reactionary. Time is anti-labor. Time is anti¬
liberal. The evidence in almost every issue proves this. And
a study of all issues from 1923 to date also shows that in every
controversy in which the House of Morgan was named, Time
was on the side of the great banking institution, just as in
every news item in which there was a pro and anti NAM posi¬
tion, Time was for the NAM's point of view.
Time, admitting that it is biased and not impartial, has
been biased against Russia for almost a quarter of a century;
and has been partial, although a study of its columns com¬
pared to the study of the pages of the New York Times, 1917
to 1920, made by Charles Merz and Walter Lippmann (“A Test
of the News,” New Republic supplement, August 4, 1920),
shows clearly that Time has never printed scores of absolutely
false items such as Merz and Lippmann found in the Times,
nor is Timers bias as virulent as that of the Times,
Mr. Luce's editorial policy is also evidenced, at least to
people in the same trade, by the persons who are chosen, year
after year, to glorify with long and glowing articles. Mussolini,
Franco, Mannerheim, have been the recipients of the Luce
equivalent of a medal of honor, and even Hitler himself, whose
signed articles in America appeared only in the Hearst news¬
papers, was treated at least cautiously.
118
1000 AMERICANS
When Time chose Hitler for its “man of the year” there
was considerable excitement in the editorial office, and more
than the usual weekly rewriting of the main feature item.
The chief argument among editors was whether or not the
article was too anti-Nazi.
The following paragraph was inserted, after editorial con¬
ference, in the second draft: “What Adolf Hitler & Co, did to
Germany in less than 6 years was applauded wildly and ecstatic¬
ally by most Germans.”
However, since an editor forgot to cut a later paragraph
in the original version, the inserted lines were soon flatly con¬
tradicted.
In the second version there also appeared the following
phrase: “Hitler’s , . . was no ordinary dictatorship, but rather
one of great energy and magnificent planning . . . magnificent
highways . . . workers’ benefits. . . .”
In the first half of the thirties Time's foreign editor was
Laird S. Goldsborough, who was also assigned by Luce to
produce the famous July, 1934, issue of Fortune, the greatest
glorification of Italian fascism ever to appear anywhere in
America.
In the editorial introduction the editor wonders “whether
fascism is achieving in a few years or decades such a conquest
of the spirit of man as Christianity achieved only in ten cen¬
turies.” This nonsense about “the spirit of man” was merely
covering up near-slavery, near-starvation, and exploitation of
millions of workers for the enrichment of the employers wHo
subsidized Mussolini—^which is what every honest journalist
knew fascism was. Here is the concluding editorial paragraph:
“But the good journalist must recognize in Fascism certain
ancient virtues of the race, whether or not they happen to be
momentarily fashionable in his own country. Among these are
Discipline, Duty, Courage, Glory, Sacrifice.”
History of course has shown up Fascism to be a fraud. It
is terrorism, degradation, murder. The July, 1934, issue of
Fortune will remain, however, an important piece of docu¬
mentary evidence in any future history of the relationship of
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
119
the American newspaper and magazine press to foreign Fas¬
cism.
Goldsborough, descendant of an old aristocratic American
family, was generally known as “Goldie” to his colleagues on
the foreign news staff of Time, He resented bitterly the nick¬
name with its Jewish implication. At the same time in the
items he wrote he frequently referred to Leon Blum, premier
of France, as “spidery Jew Blum,” and used other expressions
which were protested by many readers as anti-Semitic.
Quincy Howe, in his book, “The News and How to Un¬
derstand It,” points out that Goldsborough “had a schoolgirl
crush on Mussolini” and used the anti-Semitic phrases about
Blum “after Hitler came into power.” Howe also states that
“following Luce’s marriage to Mrs. Brokaw Time stopped
ridiculing the Jews.”
This statement is disputed by several Time editors. It is
obvious from the reading of Time itself that the only period in
which it was slightly liberal was when Ralph Ingersoll was
its publisher, and that even after Luce’s marriage to Clare
Boothe Brokaw phrases such as these appeared in the magazine:
“heavy-jowled Jew Fleischaker,” “smart Jew,” “garrulous Jew**
and “shrewd Jew.**
It took thousands of letters of protest from readers—and
all Luce publications are extremely sensitive to criticism in
letters—before the practice of using anti-Semitic phrases such
as the foregoing, was finally stopped.
The war in Spain—the fascist conspiracy that destroyed
the democratic Republic largely by red-baiting it—caused
trouble in Timers oihce, just as it did in other editorial offices
where even the use of the terms “Loyalist** and “Nationalist,”
“reds** and “fascists,” were disputed by editors and writers.
Time, during Goldsborough’s turn as foreign editor, published
considerable material favorable to Franco. Goldsborough wrote
that Franco was soft-spoken, humorous, carefree, something
like FDR, and that his program was “back to Normalcy,” but
Loyalist Spain was “government of mobsters,** and the Loyalist
soldiers defending Madrid were “shoemakers, cabdrivers.
1000 AMERICANS
120
waiters** who were “prevented from scattering ... by their
officers standing behind them with cocked firearms. . . .**
As one of the score of American war correspondents who
were actually in the defense of Madrid, the present writer
must say that this is an outrageous perversion of the truth
about one of the most noble and heroic episodes in the history
of the fight for freedom of all peoples of this world.
The majority of Timers staff was anti-fascist. A party
given to support the Spanish Republic in its fight against
Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, was sponsored by the leading
writers of the nation, including the following Time-Life-For¬
tune staff members: T. S. Matthews, later Time's managing
editor, Robert Cantwell, John Chamberlain, Allen Grover,
Louis Kronenberger, Margaret Bourke-White, Mary Fraser.
A little pro-Franco magazine called The Sign (April, 1938)
threatened Luce with a boycott. Luce replied:
“As to the ‘party,' I can tell you that I did not approve of it
and that my associates now know I did not approve it. We do not
object to individuals in Time, Inc., editors or writers, sponsoring
various causes.
“This ‘party' was the first of its kind to come to my notice and
a rule covering such activities will presently be put in force in this
company. (Signed) Henry R. Luce."
Saturday Evening Post: If every issue of this popular weekly
had on its front page, in large type, instead of the little notice
on an inside page, the fact that it is directed by Fuller of the
National Association of Manufacturers, and that like the NAM
it is devoted to defending corporate interests, then everything
about this magazine, even its fiction, would require no further
explanation.
The NAM furnishes the general staff of the armies of
reaction of America. Equivalents of the NAM originated, or
organized, or paid for the fascist movements in all of the
Hitler Axis countries and in South America, and wherever
reaction has gone to its last inevitable step, armed itself with
bayonets, become fascism. If fascism comes to the United States,
it will come as “Americanism," as Huey Long predicted, but
it will succeed only if it is backed by the great financial and
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
121
industrial interests, as history has shown in Germany, Italy,
Japan, Spain, Portugal, China, Greece and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the forces of reaction have at their disposal
the great magazine press, of which probably the most effective
member is the Saturday Evening Post, It is significant that the
former president of the NAM is the present president of
the house which publishes the Post. Mr. Fuller is still one of
the inner circle which directs the policy of the NAM.
A comprehensive study of the contents of the Saturday
Evening Post has been made, but it has not been published.
The present writer has had access to the manuscript. A large
part of it is devoted to analyzing a 6-month period of 1940,
when the United States was still technically neutral, and no
one had to hide his feelings. This analysis concerns chiefly the
articles written by the Saturday Evening Post correspondent
Demaree Bess, whom the Nazis treated with exceptional kind¬
ness. He was permitted to travel where others were excluded,
he had the “cooperation’' of high officials, and he went to
occupied France, Holland and Norway. This despite the fact
the year before he had been barred from Germany for an
article Himmler did not like. Yet it was Himmler himself who
gave Bess permission to return. A Gestapo agent visited Bess
at a Paris hotel and offered to help him. Arrangements were
made and Bess began to enjoy Nazi hospitality. Richard O.
Boyer wrote in PM that American correspondents were not
permitted to see anything for themselves, they were watched,
“supervised,” treated like prisoners. Not Bess. He went, he
saw, he wrote. And the articles of 1940 may today be found in
libraries.
November 9, 1940: “Germany’s Wild Animal Circus”—
An apology for Hitler’s failure to end the war by September 1.
January 11, 1941: “Inside German Europe”—This article
resulted in much protest and many cancelled subscriptions.
A tremendous whitewash of the German occupation of Nor¬
way, and of Quisling, the traitor, who was later executed. The
whole is a disgraceful defense of fascists.
February 1, 1941: “The Bitter Fate of Holland.” Although
122
1000 AMERICANS
this article says the nation is not enjoying the Nazi occupation,
it is written to try to show that it does not pay a nation to resist
Hitler, because it will suffer terrible consequences if it does
not surrender. Pro-Nazis are quoted with great effect, especially
bankers, who want a Dutch-Nazi alliance, and non-Nazi busi¬
nessmen everywhere are appealed to. A very effective piece of
propaganda.
March 8, 1941: “They Took Sweden By Telephone.” Not
about Sweden but almost entirely an attack upon Russia. The
plan of the article is to make Nazi Germany the lesser evil
vis-a-vis Russia.
April 5, 1941: In an article on Poland, Bess perpetrates
the most vicious of all his pro-Nazi propaganda pieces, this
time in defense of the Nazi treatment of the Polish Jews, some
five million of whom were enslaved, worked to death, or mur¬
dered in gas chambers and other new means of extermination.
Bess has a Nazi explain the whole situation and whitewash
the most terrible crime in the history of the world, genocide.
Thus the Saturday Evening Post which from the 1920’s
on had lauded Mussolini, Deterding, Hugo Stinnes, Ivor
Kreuger, and many fascists, was obviously on the side of Hitler
in the 1940’s.
On August 9, 1941, the Post carried this line: “Japan’s
herioc four-year struggle for peace in China.” An editor tried
to convince PM that “that was sarcasm.”
In its issue of September 11, 1940, the Saturday Evening
Post worked another angle of yellow journalism. In attacking
labor it invited the public in an ad to read its next number
where it could “watch a columnist whip away at a CIO leader
until Justice officials nab him on charges of forgery and lar¬
ceny.”
This is not the truth. No CIO leader has been “nabbed.”
The Saturday Evening Post rarely retracts statements its
victims call false, and there is no adequate law in the land
against libelling groups, organizations, religious bodies, unions,
and the like. Congressman Bruce Barton, himself an endorser
of Mussolini and head of the advertising firm of Batten, Barton,
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
123
Durstine 8c Osborne, tried to pass it oflE as a copywriter’s slip*
but the Post finally apologized in small type on September 28.
It had previously published a long, smeary attack on the
CIO, using the usual renegade liberal for the job. Again, it
was a case of no actionable libel suit existing due to the United
States not having a group libel law, as France, Canada and
other democracies have. This time the Saturday Evening Post
refused to publish the CIO’s reply.
It used this same author for another typically Post smear,
and the result was a libel suit by Dr. Jerome Davis against it
and its writer, Benjamin Stolberg. The court decided that
Stolberg and the Saturday Evening Post had printed a libel,
and awarded Dr. Davis a sum of money. In February, 1945,
the Post paid Gardner Jackson $1,500 for a libel against him
written by Stolberg.
Of the PosVs unceasing service to reaction by its campaign
against unions, the Railroad Brotherhood organ. Labor, said
(August 20, 1940): “The American people are being subjected
to a blitzkrieg of propaganda. One of the most mendacious of
the big berthas employed to smother us with misinformation
is, of course, the Saturday Evening Post/'
In 1939 the Saturday Evening Post published a series of
articles purporting to be the confessions of a “General Walter
Krivitsky.” One of them dealt with Spain. The present writer
went to Spain (for the New York Post) in December, 1936, and
stayed until May, 1937. All important statements made by
Krivitsky as to events in that period were falsehoods.
Spain not only in the early days of the fascist rebellion, but
even today is a test for many Americans. The war there was
started by the fascist internationale, the nations which had
signed the Anti-Komintern Pakt with Hitler; it was fought on
the Franco side by bloodthirsty Moors, hired troops—the fascist
Italians ran away from the battle of Brihuega—and German
aviation units which were given combat training in preparation
for the well-publicized coming World War II. On the other side
it was supported by the Popular Fronts of many nations, rang¬
ing from center to left, from republicans and democrats to
124
1000 AMERICANS
socialists and communists. American journalists and American
diplomatic representatives informed the State and War Depart¬
ments and the public that they were witnessing a dress rehearsal
for a great war which Fascism was planning. But few paid any
attention to this fact.
The American people would have been all out for Repub¬
lican or Loyalist Spain if they had known the truth. The re¬
actionaries and fascists did their best to change public opinion
through the use of falsehood.
The Saturday Evening Post printed Krivitsky’s attack on
Loyalist Spain. Moreover, the Saturday Evening Post claimed
that the State Department had vouched for the authenticity of
its “General Krivitsky,'* whereas Time magazine questioned
this statement. “This week the State Department refused either
to confirm or deny the authenticity of General Krivitsky,” re¬
ported Time (May 22).
In February, 1941, the man who passed under the name of
Krivitsky committed suicide in a Washington hotel. The Asso¬
ciated Press did not send out all the news having an important
bearing on this action, and many newspapers faked their stories,
hinting at murder, assassination, “the long arm of the OGPU.”
Even the dignified New York Times used “Stalked by the
OGPU?“ in a subhead.
In his last letter to his wife Krivitsky had written, “It is
very difficult. I want to live very badly, but it is impossible . . .
I think my sins are big . .
But what were his sins? Not least among them was the
outrageous attack on the Spanish anti-fascist Republic which
was published in the Saturday Evening Post,
Just before he ended his life, he was trying to find some¬
one who would publish his attack on that magazine. He ar¬
ranged a meeting with an official of the League of American
Writers, and at times in an incoherent rush of words, which
showed he was already emotionally unbalanced, he complained:
“You know, I could raise plenty of hell if I wanted to tell
all I know . . . Do you know who'd buy an article about the
truth about the Saturday Eening Post stuff?”
The Saturday Evening Post's service to reaction began just
the seven big weeklies
125
after the First World War, when Kenneth Roberts, Isaac L.
Marcosson, and several other nationally known writers were
hired to sing the praises of reactionary dictators, the greatest
swindlers of the era, and tycoons such as Sir Henri Deterding,
who financed a war in Baku to save his oil, and told the
Saturday Evening Post that he favored the murder of all work¬
ers who refused to work—on his terms.
Nothing has changed but the names of the writers. Today
leading reactionary writers include Deinaree Bess and Henry
J. Taylor. The latter is never named as the president of the
Package Advertising Company, a business firm which in 1946
and at the date of this writing was under investigation by the
Federal Trade Commission on the charge of monopolistic prac¬
tices. Taylor also works for the Scripps-Howard chain and
speaks over the ABC network (for General Motors.) Every¬
where, Mr. Taylor spreads reaction.
One of the new names in the labor-baiting department of
this weekly is the noted sea writer William McFee, who spe¬
cialized on the maritime unions. In announcing one McFee
article. Editor W. W. Stout of the Post boasted that it was
authentic because McFee had had the aid of a genuine NMU-
CIO official, a certain Jerome King.
What neither McFee nor the Post told 15,000,000 readers
is that Jerome King is actually Jerome Madeiros, a murderer.
Moreover, Madeiros, before coming to the service of the
Post and collaboration with the noted author McFee, was
already notorious as a labor racketeer, a goon, a traitor to his
union, and a crook. It was in a fight with union men that Ma¬
deiros killed a CIO worker, and was arrested, tried, and sent
to the penitentiary for murder. When the Post and McFee
were asked to state the facts, they refused. From that time on
the noted author became known in labor circles as Fibber
McFee. (Documentation: McFee article, Saturday Evening
Post, September 21, 1940; Madeiros murder sentence, Decem¬
ber 29; details in In Fact, February 10, 1941.)
126
1000 AMERICANS
From the larger viewpoint, the question of being a DemO'
cratic or anti-Democratic force in America, a noteworthy state¬
ment was made by Mr. Justice Jackson of the U. S. Supreme
Court. Addressing the Massachusetts Law Society the then
Attorney General traced the history of the nation as a democ¬
racy—in contrast to its being officially a republic—and named
as openly anti Democratic or fascist forces such examples as
General Van Horn Moseley, Merwin K. Hart, H. W. Prentis,
Jr., then president of the NAM, Lindbergh, the League for
Constitutional Government (obviously Gannett's Committee
for Constitutional Government) and the Saturday Evening
Post,
The Nazis never missed an opportunity to use undemo¬
cratic and pro-fascist publications for their propaganda ma¬
chine. They filled the airwaves with extracts from Hearst’s
Cosmopolitan, Lawrence Spivak and Eugene Lyons’ American
Mercury, the Reader's Digest, and the Saturday Evening Post,
Here is documentary proof. On March 17, 1941, the foreign
monitoring service of Columbia Broadcasting Company, which
supplied radio stations and newspapers with news, sent out the
following (which few, if any, used—the Post itself is a large
advertiser):
“V17 [1941]
CBS 21.-
NAZI QUOTES SATURDAY EVENING POST TO SHOW
ROOSEVELT ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION ON
LEND-LEASE ACT
“Following the line set by earlier Axis broadcasts, E. D. Ward,
former American press agent who broadcast by shortwave from
Berlin, tonight said that Pres. Roosevelt and not the American
people was responsible for the decision to pass the Lend-Lease Bill.
“Ward, whose true name is Edward Delaney, quoted exten¬
sively from the Saturday Evening Post, Here are several paragraphs
of his broadcast which was recorded at Columbia's shortwave listen¬
ing station. . . ,
“ ‘Let me quote you from an editorial in the Saturday Evening
Post of January 4th last. . . .
“[The quoted Saturday Evening Post editorial denounces the
President, saying he alone and not the American Government is
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
127
responsible for lend-leasing airplanes and other munitions, and
alone is responsible for ‘a military alliance with Canada/ Ward,
who worked for Hitler, then continued as follows]:
** ‘End of quotation from the Saturday Evening Post,
** ‘And yet we are told that one man does not make the nation's
decisions.
“ ‘Are the statements I have just quoted from the Saturday
Evening Post of January 4th correct, or are they false?
“ ‘If they are false then that publication is guilty of the most
monumental libel in the history of the country and legal proceed¬
ings should be taken to enforce a retraction.
“ ‘But have such proceedings been instituted? No. . . /
EJ HS L 1:07 PM."
The Post, after Pearl Harbor, changed its line on world
politics, but so far as the social and economic situation in
America is concerned, so far as labor, the majority, and De¬
mocracy in America is concerned, it has not changed. It is still
reaction’s booming voice.
Collier's: By the usual tests—notably, editorial attitude
towards labor, liberals, reactionaries and fascists— Colliefs is
very much like its main rival, the Saturday Evening Post, but
never as crude, irresponsible and blatant. It will not have a
Henry J. Taylor write a glowing blurb for a fascist dictator,
but it will print the letters of Cardinal Spellman doing just
that—even though they are not entirely truthful either. The
Cardinal wrote that ‘‘Franco is a very sincere, serious and in¬
telligent man." It this is true, it is a half-truth, worse than a
lie. He could have stated that Franco is a very sincere, serious
and intelligent murderer, as all the evidence of the Franco
uprising against law and order, and the massacres then and
later amply prove. The Cardinal is entitled to his opinion, and
Collier's has full freedom of the press to publish not only that
opinion but also statements the Cardinal made as fact which
are not facts. PM devoted four pages on October 11, 1943, to
pointing out the Cardinal’s errors. Collier's of course did noth¬
ing about them.
On October 2, 1943, it attacked the maritime unions, de¬
fending the columnist Westbrook Pegler, who had previously
libeled the National Maritime Union. At that time the list of
128
1000 AMERICANS
dead of the seagoing unions was proportionately higher than
the dead of the American air service, or infantry, or any other
fighting outfit. The National Maritime Union’s public rela¬
tions director, Leo Huberman, sent Collier's a refutation of its
(and Pegler’s) libels, quoting United States Navy men, asking
the courtesy of a correction. Collier^s refused to reply.
In its issue of February 15, 1941, Collier's attacked Mus¬
solini. By then the Morgan loan to fascist Italy was not worth
saving. Six months earlier, when there was still hope, Colliers
had published a piece of praise, reviving the 1925 Morgan
myth that Mussolini had saved Italy from Bolshevism.
As for Mexico, Collier's continued to write articles attack¬
ing the regime—and its oil policies. “Bolshevik banditry’’ was
one label Collier's placed on the restoration of the oil lands
to the nation, as ordered by the 1927 constitution of the Re¬
public.
On December 9, 1939, the leading editorial was: “Re¬
write the Wagner Act.’’
These are but a few samples from a file of about a thou¬
sand items which prove either that Collier's has never moved
an inch from the policy line of the NAM and the House of
Morgan—which merely owns a small block of its stock—or all
these thousand items add up to just so many coincidences.
Liberty: This magazine has passed through many hands.
It was started by the Chicago Tribune and the New York Daily
News heads. Colonel McCormick and Captain Patterson, re¬
spectively, at a time when a loss of ten or fifteen million dollars
did not hurt them at all, due to the post-war tax laws. But they
tired of losing money and the great Bernarr Macfadden took
over the editorship and the losses. It later passed into the hands
of Paul Hunter and Associates, and is now edited by Hunter
but owned by Atlas Corporation which is bossed by Floyd
Odium.
In all these changing years Liberty has been consistent
in only one policy: it has always been reactionary.
It was intensely so during the editorship of Fulton Ours-
ler, now an editor of Reader's Digest, who had the cooperation
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
129
in editorial policy of George Sylvester Viereck, who had been
accused at the time of the First World War of being a German
agent, and who was sent to jail in the Second World War as a
Nazi agent. At the time Viereck collaborated with Oursler at
Liberty Viereck was known to be a Nazi. He wrote pro-Nazi
articles which appeared in Liberty under Oursler’s editorship.
Correspondence between Oursler and Viereck was read during
the latter’s trial. In a document (Appendix to Appellant’s
Brief, U. S. Court of Appeals, D.C., No. 8204—filed May 4,
1942) there are references to this collaboration. On page 171
the following statement is made:
“Mr. Viereck was . . . advisory editor of the Macfaddcn Pub-
lications. Until New York’s German Library of Information (the
Nazi propaganda bureau) was compelled to close its doors, he was
its literary advisor (stet).
“Many of Mr. Viereck’s writings have appeared in Liberty,
Saturday Evening Post and the Hearst newspapers. The author (is)
the American correspondent of the Muenchner Neuests (stet)
Nachrichten/*
(Page 172)
“Q. Now, can you tell us what if any work Mr. Viereck did
for Liberty Magazine and the approximate time?
“A. He did a great deal of work for Liberty Magazine for a
period of some time shortly after 1925, I am not sure when, until
two or three years ago, and I am not sure of that time.
“Q. Now, can you tell us what kind of work Mr. Viereck did
for Liberty?
“A. He wrote original articles, he edited and prepared for pub¬
lication articles to be signed by others than himself. Those were his
chief activities for Liberty/'
The questioner was the Assistant Attorney General Mr.
Maloney, the witness was Mr. Oursler’s assistant. The owner
of Liberty at that time had been Macfadden, and the editor
Mr. Oursler.
Like 99% of the publications living on advertising.
Liberty was always anti-labor, editorially. It had other anti¬
labor uses. In the La Follette investigation of Violations of Free
Speech and the Rights of Labor, Exhibit 86 is a letter from
William H. Gray, field solicitor for Railway Audit & Inspec-
130
1000 AMERICANS
tion Company, which the La Follette Committee listed as a
supplier of gangsters, stoolpigeons, racketeers and spies for
strike-breaking corporations. The letter states:
“Note with interest what you have to say re the story in the
Liberty Magazine, etc. I have been following that up, also the
stories in the Saturday Evening Post as I get some very good talking
points out of each magazine. . .
Exhibit 136 is the reply of Eugene Ivy, Atlanta attorney
of this strikebreaking agency:
“I am sending you a clipping from the Liberty Magazine which
I believe will be of much interest to you, especially that portion
which relates to the Industrial Racket. I think it would be wise for
you to be prepared on this subject with the information. ... I
suggest that you destroy this letter immediately. . .
Although at no time was there any direct NAM money in
Liberty —as contrasted to the indirect money for the entire
press, the annual $2,000,000,000 American advertising outlay,
most of which comes from NAM manufacturers—the NAM
viewpoint was about a)s directly followed as in the other
popular magazines.
Oursler hired the hired man of the National Association
of Manufacturers, George E. Sokolsky, to do one of the largest
gilt-edge pieces of brasscheck journalism in defense of adver¬
tisers. It happened that Mr. Oursler's daughter one day asked
him why he ran ads. “The things they say are not true. I don't
believe a word of them," Oursler reported his daughter as
saying. Oursler “decided to turn over the pages of Liberty
to a defense of advertising. He thought of a man who could
tell the story so that it would ‘shine as truth.' " {Nation, De¬
cember 24, 1938). That man was Sokolsky. (In its report on the
NAM the La Follette Committee decided that it worked “in
secrecy and with “deceit" and hired professors, journalists,
preachers, including this same Sokolsky.)
Liberty, like most of its rivals, carries a large amount of
patent medicine advertising. Patent medicines usually harm
you or rob you; about 99% of them are bad or worthless. The
Federal Trade Commission issues fraud orders against patent
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES 131
medicine ads every day and all but a few newspapers in
America suppress these news items every day.
Dr. Jesse Mercer Gehman in his important work “Smoke
Over America” points out an outstanding piece of hypocrisy
in the Macfadden magazines, including Liberty. Macfadden,
“father of physical culture,” wrote against the use of tobacco,
but when he got Liberty from the Chicago Tribune he found
that a large part of his income would be cigarette ads. He took
them.
Under the Atlas Corporation ownership Liberty in its first
fortnightly issue, February 1, 1947, finally did something
neither the Brown Brothers, Harriman, Morgan or NAM
magazines have ever done: it came out openly with its main
feature article in praise of the National Association of Manu¬
facturers. Written by one Henry D. Steinmetz, it began by
saying that the speech, “See Here, Private Enterprise,” deliv¬
ered by Private Marion Hargrove before the Congress of
Industry, “resounded in headlines throughout the country.”
This statement is not true. In publishing the speech in In Fact
(December 31, 1945), it was noted that the text came from the
Congressional Record (December 14, p. A6005) and that no
newspaper outside the Chicago Sun had given it. From inqui¬
ries made by newspaper men throughout the country, at the
request of the present writer, it appeared that neither the New
York papers, nor the papers of any other city, nor the Associ¬
ated Press and United Press carried the Hargrove address,
although all other NAM speakers were reported.
Liberty goes on to say that among the activities of the
NAM have been “plumping” for the Panama Canal and “the
new pure food and drug laws.” It may have dug the Panama
Canal, but as for the pure food and drug law, it was a group
of members of the NAM which killed the Tugwell Bill and
emasculated the Copeland Bill which replaced it.
Again, it is stated that the NAM’s publicity organization
has been brought “at least on a par with the more powerful
labor organizations.” On the authority of Monopoly Investi¬
gation Monograph 26 it can be said that this statement also is
132
1000 AMERICANS
false. The NAM’s publicity department is many times as strong
as that of all the labor organizations combined, obtains, say,
a thousand times as much publicity, and perhaps more.
Again, taking the tests of policy, from reaction to fascism,
from labor-baiting to red-baiting, it can be said that Liberty
through its four varied ownerships has done a pretty good job
of holding tight to the same old big business-NAM-sacred
cow line.
As for the factor red-baiting, here is a gem from Liberty:
“Bolshevism is knocking at our gates. We can't afford to let it
in. We have got to organize ourselves against it, and put our shoul¬
ders together and hold fast. We must keep America whole and safe
and unspoiled. We must keep the worker away from red literature
and red ruses; we must see that his mind remains healthy."
The noted author who made this statement in Liberty
was—A1 Caponel
'Newsweek: There seems to be no reason for the existence
of this weekly: it is nothing better than a rewrite of what has
appeared in the newspapers, and it is boring and dull. It seems
incredible that a staff of some 50 newspaper people should
succeed in producing, week after week, a thick magazine su}>
posedly condensing and explaining the news, and doing it
without a ray of brightness or intelligence.
Newsweek is the chief rival of Time, Time is bright, and
has been accused of sacrificing accuracy frequently in order to
be clever. Many persons have subscribed to Newsweek in the
belief that it was less biased and prejudiced than Time, Time
is bright, admits that it is biased; Newsweek is dull, but does
not admit it is biased.
A good explanation for the founding of Newsweek is that
its owners, bankers. Wall Street men, heads of the National
Association of Manufacturers, were not quite satisfied with the
reactionary prejudices of the big business newsweekly Time.
They wanted something even more reactionary. No publica¬
tion of national circulation is so openly Wall Street as News¬
week,
Like all corporation-owned magazines, Newsweek is anti-
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
133
labor. The Full Employment Bill was dubbed “The Fool Em¬
ployment Bill” by Newsweek editor Dr. Ralph Robey. Some
time later he became a hired hand of the NAM.
In the service of Fascism Newsweek supported Franco
and attacked the Loyalists of Spain. When protests were sent
it, the then editor, Rex Smith, replied the term “reds” for the
Republicans was used “for the sake of clarity.”
Newsweek employed Major General J. F. C. Fuller of the
British Army to write its military analysis. Repeated attacks
by Walter Winchell resulted in the general being fired. How¬
ever, it is a fact that General Fuller was one of ^he few Fascists
outside Italy and Germany who openly admitted that fact.
He was a member of the British Union of Fascists, a candidate
for Parliament of this pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic organization.
In its August 2, 1943, issue, Newsweek still lauded Musso¬
lini for saving Italy from “chaos, political decay, rising Com¬
munism.” Twenty-two years earlier, in his own paper, Musso¬
lini called these statements false. In 1925 they were part of
the propaganda used for floating Fascist loans in Wall Street,
and they are now part of the American mythology.
Almost every general criticism of the other popular week¬
lies applies to Newsweek. Its propaganda for banking, big cor¬
porations, the NAM’s free enterprise, is more openly and
more “honestly” stated than in Time.
Look: Look is the only one of the big circulation maga¬
zines of the whole United States which has been accepted, at
times, by Liberalism. It has a circulation of 2,000,000; the anti¬
liberals have 98,000,000. Gardner (Mike) Cowles runs Look.
Investigating the Cowles publications, Kenneth Stewart con¬
cluded {PM, May 28, 1944): they were “essentially honest,
bright, fair, competent, interesting, up-to-the minute . . .
they advance the best and most liberal elements in Republi¬
canism . . . lack luster that might make them great as well as
good—the spark of the human spirit, the flash of genius, the
grand gesture.”
Look is not a crusading magazine, nor is it liberal, in the
sense that the Nation and New Republic are liberal. It is lib-
134
1000 AMERICANS
eral only by contrast to all the rest. It might be fairer to say
merely; Look is the only popular magazine which is not reac¬
tionary.
Conclusion
It is of course impossible to make a complete indict¬
ment of the magazine press in one short section of a book.
Only a few examples have been chosen to illustrate the
general theme: that the popular weekly and monthly maga¬
zines, which constitute a great power, are in the control of the
same forces which run almost everything in the nation.
A complete study should be made of this' situation.
Very little has been reported. One of the most notable exposes
was Dwight Macdonald’s series on the Luce Empire in The
Nation in 1937. On the other hand, a lot of nonsense, to use
a mild term, has been written by all sorts of people, in an
attempt to whitewash a very black journalistic situation.
There is, for example, Mr. Quincy Howe who in a book
called “The News and How to Understand It,” and devoted to
a lot of muddying of clear waters—including statements about
the present writer and In Fact which are not true, and which
could have been corrected by a 5^ telephone call—has the fol¬
lowing to say of the Wallaces and Reader's Digest:
“Perhaps their avoidance of controversial, political issues
accounts for the circulation,” “perhaps it is their spirit of
uplift.” “No magazine in the United States has less outside
control.” Reader's Digest “uses that independence chiefly to
promote general humanitarian causes of which most Americans
strongly approve.” “The editorial genius of DeWitt Wallace.”
“Good humor, sweetness and light.”
And of the Morgan interest in Time: “But ‘connection*
is not ‘control.* . . . Time, Inc., owes less to Morgan money,
brains and influence than it does to the ability of its own ex¬
ecutives. If money and influence could alone make a suc¬
cessful publication, bankers would be richer than they are and
the publishing world poorer.**
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
135
And of Newsweek: ^'Newsweek has become more and
more the property of several well-to-do families—Harrimans,
Astors, Whitneys, Mellons. These families do not impose their
immediate interests on Newsweek any more than the Morgans
do on Time, Few financiers control their publications as di¬
rectly as the muckraking journalists would have you believe—
and when they do the results are disastrous to all concerned.”
Of Mr. Howe it cannot be said, as is usually done in the
case of writers, and others who make statements which are
childish, preposterous, stupid or propagandistic, that he is
either a knave or a fool. Mr. Howe is neither. Mr. Howe was
not born yesterday and he knows as well as the members of
the staffs of Time, Life, and Newsweek, that not once in the
history of these publications has there been deviation from the
big money line, that all the magazines in which the House of
Morgan, the Harrimans, the Harknesses, and the heads of the
National Association of Manufacturers are interested are the
defenders, propagandists and apologists for the so-called free
enterprise systems these men of Wall Street and industry have
established. Even some fools know this.
Mr. Howe is neither a knave nor a fool, and may not even
be one of Upton Sinclair’s brasscheck journalists whose morn¬
ing breakfast consists of shoe polish. He is, however, one of
Humbert Wolfe’s boys. Mr. Wolfe wrote:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank Godl the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
Mr. Howe is an illustration of a type.
There are, of course, honest but naive souls who believe
that we live in a world of a million coincidences, that this
coincidental world is the best of all possible worlds, and that
nothing is ever planned and certainly nothing is ever sinister.
Unfortunately, these honest and naive persons, such as the
editors, publishers and owners of Editor & Publisher, the New
York Times and most newspapers, are also the men who to a
great extent control public opinion. They are able to reach the
136
1000 AMERICANS
millions. And they are able to tell the millions that there is
absolutely no significance in thousands of facts such as these:
A member of the House of Morgan was one of the finan¬
ciers of Time, Time has since its first issue defended the House
of Morgan.
The Harriman, Astor, J. P. Morgan and other interests
own and control Newsweek, Newsweek is anti-labor. (Just a
coincidence.)
The two biggest advertisers are the automobile and ciga¬
rette industries, makers of the most highly priced and the
cheapest of all items of general use or consumption. Annually
each gives the newspaper press about $50,000,000. Not 1%, not
17 of the 1750 dailies, prints the numerous Federal Trade
Commission fraud orders against the cigarette makers, or the
auto makers’ fraudulent 6% installment plan. (1745 or more
coincidences.)
In the foreign field, next to the almost unanimous attack
on Russia by the popular magazine press, the next most unani¬
mous victim has been Mexico. In the early years of the Mexi¬
can revolution, there was great confusion in the American
press, but as issues came into light, and the program of the
“bandits” was seen to be the restoration of Mexico to the
Mexicans—as distinguished from the “cientificos” and others
who had sold their country to the oil, copper, silver and haci¬
enda interests of the United States—the American press rose
nobly to the defense of finance and big business.
Oil is at the bottom of the Mexican question, as of many
other questions. The 1927 Constitution declares that the natu¬
ral wealth of the sub-soil belongs to the people. Since 1927
corrupt Mexican interests, aided by corrupt American inter¬
ests, have tried to alter or compromise this cpnstitutional pre¬
cept, and on each important occasion, such as a presidential
election, the newspaper and magazine press of the “colossus
of the North” has stood staunchly by the corrupting forces of
both nations.
Collier's, the Saturday Evening Post, the Atlantic Monthly
(under the previous editorship of Ellery Sedgwick, the de-
THE SEVEN BIG WEEKLIES
137
fender of Franco Fascism), and such commercial magazines as
Mill ^ Factory, published series of articles or special editions
attacking the Mexican constitution, its liberal parties, its duly
elected administration, and its general policies. The cannons of
this magazine press were loaded with the same ammunition
which the Standard Oil Company was distributing to the news¬
papers and other kept and venal organs. In contrast, most pub^
lications not taking Standard Oil advertisements or in other
ways indebted to the Rockefellers, continued to report the
Mexican situation fairly and honestly.
As for Reader's Digest it puzzles many because it takes no
advertising, is not affiliated with big money. It does not seem
to be out for the money, as all the rest are. Perhaps all its
owner wants is great power. It is interesting to note that
Mussolini among the dictators was also unique in having no
lust for money.
It was Mr. Morgan himself who corrected a Senator who
during the Munitions Investigation suggested that “money is
the root of all evil.” “It is ‘the love of money* which ‘is the
root of all evil,’ ” said Mr. Morgan correctly. And you will
find both money and love of money woven into every page of
the history of Hitler and Hirohito, Salazar and Franco, Peron
and other dictators. Mussolini accepted a French bribe of
50,000 francs (plus a monthly subsidy) because he wanted
power, and as he himself said, power in a European country
comes easiest via ownership of a newspaper press. Mussolini
permitted the Italian national association of manufacturers
and similar organizations to subsidize his seizure of power, but
unlike Hitler, who permitted the German steel trust to do like¬
wise, Mussolini kept no money, hoarded no money, did not
enrich himself via money or live the life of a millionaire.
Money is woven into the pages of Life, Time, Fortune,
Saturday Evening Post, Collier's, Newsweek and all the rest
of the big magazines. Dwight Macdonald, no brasscheck writer,
points out how year after year Luce and his magazines have
become “more deeply entrenched in the industrial plutocracy’*
of his friends, Lamont, Davis and Morrow of the House of
138
1000 AMERICANS
Morgan. Moreover, ‘'Time, Inc., is big business itself.'' It has
enormous investments in industry. Can it be possible that the
millions made annually by the Wallaces do not tie Readers
Digest to other millions, to the world of millions, as Mr. Howe
would have us believe?
The newspaper press with its 50,000,000 and the magazine
press with its 100,000,000 circulation have had, ever since com¬
plete commercialism set in, just after the First World War,
a double objective in their editorial policy. In general terms
this objective has been:
1. To make money.
2. To protect the system in which they prosper.
In thus pursuing these objectives in the period just before
the Second World War, during it, and immediately afterwards,
the most important service of the press has been suppression of
the truth about the treason of big business in time of crisis and
war; and directing public anger against the leadership of the
enlightened public, the liberal and labor organizations.
PART THREE
BIG BUSINESS
CHAPTER 11
BIG BUSINESS IN THE WAR
In 1942 a fearless Senator accused the two largest industries
of the United States of hindering the war effort. He actually
made the charge of treason. He said: “The present grave lack
of steel is the responsibility of the large steel companies which
have sought to perpetuate their monopoly.**
Oil and steel were essential to victory. On March 27 the
Senator said: “Even after we were in the war, Standard Oil of
New Jersey was putting forth every effort of which it was
capable to protect the control of the German government over
a vital war material.
“As Patrick Henry said, if that is treason—^and it certainly
is treason—then make the most of it.
“Yes, it is treason.
“You cannot translate it any other way.**
The Senator who made these charges became President of
the United States in 1945.
The charge of treason—the most sensational news item in
the whole history of the Truman Committee’s war investiga¬
tions—was either suppressed or buried by most of the press,
although it was forced to report the official findings, even to
name names of corporations and officers who had sabotaged the
war in one or more ways.
Liberal PM headlined the news “Standard Oil Accused of
Treason.’* More surprising was the fact the New York Daily
News also gave the item a two column head. On April 5, PM
reported, under the heading “Press Protects Standard Oil,**
139
140
1000 AMERICANS
the vast effort by the American press to apologize tor this
alleged treason, to whitewash the Rockefeller corporation. PM
accused the New York Times of publishing an editorial de¬
fense of Standard Oil which varied with a State Department
finding; and it accused the newsweekly Time of “distortions,’*
of so slanting the news that Thurman Arnold and the Truman
Committee, instead of Standard Oil “turned out to be the
culprits.”
The pattern of Big Business during the Second World
War is revealed not in one but in a score or more of Senate
documents, reports of the Department of Justice, and other
agencies which cannot be doubted or questioned. All the facts
are easily procurable, they are libel-proof, and since they have
not appeared in the newspapers or magazines of large circula¬
tion they are still important enough for several books. Unfor¬
tunately, no such books are being published.
A dozen or more could be written on the general subject,
dividing it into three distinct phases:
1. The “sitdown” strike of the corporations which refused
to go into production on both the defense program of 1939
and the first wartime program of 1941-1942.
2. Profiteering and robbery of the American people;
manufacture and delivery of defective airplane motors, copper
wire, bullets and other war materials, resulting in endangering
the lives of American soldiers.
3. The secret cartel deals by which the biggest American
corporations supplied nations soon to be our enemies with
materials and information, and kept Americar unprepared.
(Books on the cartels have appeared.)
Throughout the war, and even now, the truth about the
whole business was suppressed—in the newspapers. We did
not have to wait twenty years for great investigations which
might startle the nation, just as the Nye-Vandenberg Muni¬
tions Investigation in the 1930’s disclosed to the world the
workings of the merchants of death, who profited on both sides
of the fighting front. Every agency of government did its duty.
The corporations which had been members of the Nazi cartels
BIG BUSINESS IN THE WAR
141
were named, the manufacturers who profiteered by selling de¬
fective cartridges and wire were exposed, tried, convicted and
fined a few dollars, but thanks to the fact that the American
press is free it used its special prerogative under the Article
One of the Bill of Rights of our majestic Constitution to betray
the best interests of the American people by keeping silent,
while it devoted its headlines to a daily assault upon the labor¬
ing men and women who were producing the guns and tanks
and planes and bullets to win the war.
There was total suppression. There was burial alive of
the news. There was suppression of the names of the guilty in
general news stories, and there was a well-paid campaign of
whitewash which followed every official expose of corruption
and which was almost always accompanied by a great “public
relations” advertising campaign in which accused corporations,
having nothing to sell to the public, took pages in the news¬
papers and magazines to inform America how patriotic they
themselves were and how well the free enterprise system was
functioning—and winning the war by itself.
First of all there was the big business sitdown strike of
the days of the defense program. Officially, Monograph 26
describes it in these terms:
“In the 1940 defense crisis business displayed much the same
attitude that it had shown 25 years earlier. Business would help the
government and the people, but the basis of payment therefor
would have to be fixed before the wheels would begin to turn.
Profits, taxes, loans, and so forth, appeared more important to
business than getting guns, tanks and airplane motors into pro¬
duction. , . .
“It developed that business did not want to work for the
country on the basis of a 7 or 8 percent profit limitation written
into the Vinson-Trammcl Naval Expansion Act in 1935, so these
provisions were repealed. Thus the whole cost-plus basis of defense
contracts which industry liked so well during the last war when it
had practically a free hand in determining costs, went by the board
in 1940 when the allowable items of cost were determined by the
Treasury Department. . . .
“Business is apparently not unwilling to threaten the very
foundations of government in fixing the terms on which it will
work.”
142
1000 AMERICANS
Again, in Monograph 21 of the same TNEC investigation:
“Monopoly impairs democracy’s ability to defend itself in time
of war. National defense requires an expansion of output: mo¬
nopoly seeks to augment its profit by restricting output and main¬
taining price. It thus obstructs the procurement of arms and sup¬
plies, increases the cost of defense, adds to the burden of debt and
taxation, and undermines national morale. When the nation is
attacked it may even turn the balance from victory to defeat.”
The government reports called it “blackmail/* The press
suppressed everything it could.
The defense program merged with the war production
program and President Roosevelt, determined that there must
be no such scandals as followed the First World War, put all
police powers of the government into action.
The assistant attorney general, the Tolan House Com¬
mittee, the Truman Senate Committee, the Mead Committee,
the Bone Committee, and several high officials of the Depart¬
ment of Justice did their jobs well and made their reports.
They found several criminals, they frightened many others,
and they indicted the Big Business or Free Enterprise system
itself of everything from profiteering to treason; in fact, they
continued when the war was over, in 1946 and 1947, to expose
and indict monopoly, profiteering, the cartel system by which
free enterprise was shown to be anti-free enterprise, and cer¬
tainly anti-American; but throughout these years the public
which reads the commercial press heard little or nothing of
these matters of vital importance.
For example: Just after Pearl Harbor, the Assistant At¬
torney General, Mr. Thurman Arnold, issued a sensational
report of the sabotage of the national program, the first report
naming the practices which were later to be referred to as the
treason of big business in wartime. Said Mr. Arnold:
“After a year of defense efforts we find consumers threatened
with artificial price spirals, independent business threatened with
destruction and agriculture forced to resort to price-raising methods
in order to keep up with the procession.
“Looking back over 10 months of defense effort we can now
see how much it has been hampered by the attitude of powerful
private groups dominating basic industries who have feared to
BIG BUSINESS IN THE WAR 143
expand their production because expansion would endanger their
future control of industry.
“These groups have been afraid to let others come into the
field. They have concealed shortages by optimistic predictions of
supplies, and talked of production facilities which do not exist.
“Anti-trust investigations during the past year have shown that
there is not an organized basic industry in the United States which
has not been restricting production by some device or other in
order to avoid what they call ‘ruinous overproduction after the
The nation was at war, faced with a rubber famine—
which lasted for years because Standard Oil had suppressed the
artificial rubber patents;—and an aluminum shortage, because
the Mellon interests were in a cartel with the Nazis; a refusal
by the steel interests to expand; a lack of magnesium; and so
on down the industrial line. Fortunately for America, the
Allied nations, notably Britain and Russia, were holding the
military lines—at a loss of millions of men and homes and
billions in treasure, while the United States spent two years
getting into production and making the instruments for win¬
ning the war.
It is no exaggeration to say that this situation was more
scandalous, more criminal, more treasonable, than the little
deal by which the Krupps got one shilling on every fuse used
on the Vickers hand grenades and the big deal by which certain
supplies, shipped to Denmark by the United States, were trans¬
shipped to Germany with the connivance of the British Ad¬
miralty (as Admiral Consett later disclosed).
If the public had known, and if public opinion, or rather
public indignation, counts for anything, and it can be all-
powerful, the reaction to Mr. Arnold’s disclosures would surely
have resulted in a great speeding-up of our war program.
Government seizure of the auto industry for that purpose was
demanded by such leaders as Congressman Coffee, the Wash¬
ington leader of the Liberal Bloc in Congress, Congressman
Marcantonio of New York, and the international secretary-
treasurer of the United Autoworkers, George F. Addes. Not a
word in the newspapers about this, of course. Then came the
144
1000 AMERICANS
Arnold report. The burial and suppression in the press which
followed is revealing.
To begin with, the second largest news service in America,
the United Press, buried the news under seven paragraphs of
unimportant Washington items, and it did this despite the fact
the indictment was general. Later when Mellon and Davis
and Duke of the aluminum cartel, the duPonts of General
Motors, the Rockefellers of Standard Oil, and the Morgan
Partners of United States Steel were named the story was also
suppressed. Here indicted was the free enterprise system itself.
It was at this moment that Senator Truman for the first
time used the word “treason.**
In the metropolis, the New Deal paper, PM, played up
the news, but the Hearst papers suppressed it entirely, as did
the late Captain Joe Patterson’s Daily News, while the olym¬
pian Times buried it somewhere in its vast wasteland. The
New York Herald Tribune, which frequently publishes news
the Times suppresses, did not have this item. The New York
evening papers, including the World-Telegram, suppressed the
news.
In Philadelphia, the New Deal paper, David Stem’s
Record, buried the news on page 10, the only paper to have
any mention of it at all. The report had been released Janu¬
ary 3, should have been in the Sunday papers on the 4th, in
Monday papers both morning and evening. The Philadelphia
Inquirer and the Bulletin suppressed the news.
The suppression in Chicago was most interesting. The
Tribune was still fighting our going to war against Naziism
and Fascism, still using every fair and foul tactic to throw muck
on the Roosevelt administration, and might have made use of
this report if its first duty—to advertisers—did not interfere.
Not a trace of the Arnold story appeared in the final edition
of the Tribune that Sunday.
The eight-star final sports edition of Hearst’s Herald-
American Saturday evening suppressed the news, although with
the difference in clocks there had been ample time to set type
and print the item received Saturday afternoon. Sunday, on
BIG BUSINESS IN THE WAR
145
page 4, column 3, this paper ran exactly three paragraphs at
the bottom half of the page. Senator Truman’s treason charge
was omitted.
Colonel Knox’s Daily News on Saturday printed the facts
on page one, six paragraphs, which is not much. The Times
did little better. It ran on its twelfth page a one-column head
over an eight-paragraph item: ‘'Arnold Charges Private Groups
Held Up Defense.” No Truman story. The only honest cover-
age was by Marshall Field’s Sun which used the heading “Army
Delay Blamed on Big Business” on page one, mentioned Tru¬
man as well as Arnold, and was one of the few papers of the
whole country which returned to the subject with an editorial.
On January 15, Senator Truman released his report
(Senate Committee Investigating National Defense) which for
the first time named the corporations, notably General Motors,
Chrysler, Ford, Aluminum Company and Bethlehem Steel.
The report was so sensational it could not be ignored by even
the most corrupt newspapers, but even the New York Times
took the liberty of suppressing the names of every one of the
corporations involved, although it spread the report on three
inside columns in addition to four and a half paragraphs on
page one. On the other hand, PM, which had no advertising
from any of the corporations named, as did the Times, devoted
four and a half solid pages to the Truman indictment.
There were of course a few honest papers throughout the
country which printed the facts, as they usually do. The
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Christian Science Monitor, among
the nationally known dailies, the Gazette and Daily of York,
Pennsylvania, among the smalltown dailies, but these news**
papers—not 1% of the total of 1750—^were not able to en¬
lighten the whole nation and stir it to righteous anger.
On the other hand, the papers and writers began imme¬
diately their volunteer work for the big money. The main
culprit in the Truman report was the auto industry, the largest
advertiser of them all (tying for first place frequently with the
soap makers and the tobacco vendors); and here is one of the
146
1000 AMERICANS
items of whitewash, as written by the then Scripps-Howard and
now Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler:
“What the hell difference does it make now whether the
maladministration in Washington, industrial inefficiency, economic
caution or honest fear of a Socialistic coup in the motor industry or
what combination of all these factors caused the enormous and
irretrievable waste of materials and loss of time in the conversion
of the motor factories toward production? . . . Naturally the motor
companies were slow to abandon their regular trade. ... I was in
Washington when the CIO presented the ‘practical, simple plan for
utilizing and adapting the available machinery in the automobile
industry for plane production.' . . . Possibly the magnates made a
mistake in rejecting it as a Socialistic scheme intended to wrest the
industry out of the hands of the owners, who, incidentally, are
legion. . . . [Mr. Pegler apparently does not believe in the
O’Mahoney report that 200 families own and control American
industry; that the duPonts control General Motors.] The industry
is sure to be Socialized now and God only knows who will get it
when the war is over. . . . But, as capitalists and believers in
private property their reaction was the only one that could have
been expected of them.”
The remarks of that leading social philosopher Mr. Pegler
were not unique. In fact, it might be said that the same per¬
centage of the press which attacked Mr. Roosevelt on each of
his four campaigns, the press which was the enemy of the New
Deal and which is always the enemy of progress and the friend
of reaction (say some 90% of the newspapers, to be conserva¬
tive), went quickly to the defense of each and every one of the
industries, corporations and individuals accused of everything
from neglect to treason. Advertising played a part. Said Space &
Time, the newsletter of that profession (April 6, 1942): “Thur¬
man Arnold has his say on what Standard Oil of New Jersey
had done and had deliberately failed to do. . . . Standard-
men William Stamps Parish and Frank Atherton took the
stand to defend themselves. . . . Meanwhile McCann-Erickson
Inc., tlie Standard advertising agency, well paid for its expert
knowledge of which side the press is buttered on, is preparing
an advertising campaign to do the necessary.*'
In the same report Space & Time notes that nothing will
be done to Standard, one reason being its power which reaches
BIG BUSINESS IN THE WAR
147
into Government, into the Truman Committee itself. Tom
Connally, of the Committee, had argued so bitterly with
Senator O’Mahoney “that the latter was reduced in exaspera¬
tion to muttering ‘treason* under his breath,” a remark first
used by Truman. Senator Herring of Iowa also did his best for
Standard. On the War Labor Board was W. C. Teagle, former
chairman of the Standard Oil of New Jersey. Mr. Teagle used
his high office to influence the Petroleum Administrator, sug¬
gesting one of his own men as Deputy Administrator, but the
place had already been filled. At the War Department was
General W. D. Byron, until then a Gulf Oil vice-president.
Commenting on the revival of the phrase “merchants of death,”
Space & Time concluded: “There is nothing wrong with the
idea as a device to identify the Parishes, Howards and Teagles
as the legitimate heirs of Sir Basil Zaharoff.”
On April 2, the New York Times devoted its leading edi¬
torial, a full column, to a rousing defense of Standard Oil,
something Standard Oil could not have bought for a million
dollars but somehow got for nothing. Newsweekly Time de¬
voted two pages to this subject in its issue of April 6, On
page 16 it said that, “Seldom has a United States business firm
taken such a smearing as Standard Oil. , . . Thurman Arnold
monopolized the nation’s front pages; Standard was damned
from hell to breakfast. But last week when the company finally
got a chance to reply, its ‘treason’ turned out to be strictly of
the dinner-table variety.” And from there on, three columns
of whitewash. Page 89 of the same issue of Time was an ad¬
vertisement paid for by Standard Oil. Time got $8,000 for it.
At this time, as always, Mr. Luce’s other magazine. Fortune,
ran a series of articles in praise of certain other corporations.
Each of these articles coincidentally followed an attack by the
Justice Department on the corporation as being part of the
Nazi cartels, as, for example, Dow Chemical and Bausch &
Lomb. Each of these whitewash pieces usually appeared within
three months of the day the government made its accusation,
or just the time necessary to get the material in print. Believers
148 1000 AMERICANS
in a world of coincidences are welcome to this item for their
scrapbooks.
Typical ot the daily newspaper whitewash was the full
page feature story by Jonathan Waldo in the San Francisco
Chronicle (April 20) headlined “Treason Is An Ugly Word.”
It was illustrated with the trade-marks of Dow, Bausch &: Lomb,
and Esso, and said that the press had sensationalized Arnold’s
use of the word “treason”—whereas in fact and in truth not
one paper in ten had headlined it, and more papers suppressed
or whitewashed the firms than printed the real indictment.
Throughout May and June the ad-less newspaper PM
reported that “Press Plays Esso Handout” and “Standard Gets
A Good Press.” The Nation said (August 17) that “even such
a reputable and often courageous publication as Time magazine
has played the game of apology and cover-up for Standard,”
and on August 31 Time showed its courageousness by publish¬
ing another full page of whitewash of Parish and Haslam and
Standard Oil, who had now been able to “refute the charges”
of the government, while on page 74 of the same issue appeared
another of those $8,000 page advertisements, this one paid for
by Esso.
In August, when the few liberal papers were telling a few
liberals that “Standard’s Alibi Collapses” and “Parish Refuted
at Senate Quiz,” the reactionary New York World-Telegram
presented an eight-column headline dripping with whitewash:
“U. S. Agencies Fully Advised on Rubber Patents, Parish Tells
Senate.” Even more venal was the series of articles whitewash¬
ing many of the accused war corporations which the Scripps-
Howard chain published in 1943 under the title “Forging the
Future.” Their February 19 issue was devoted to one of the
worst cartel offenders, and the heading was “Aluminum Co.
Plays Dramatic War Part.”
But the greatest effrontery of all was the use made of the
venal press by Standard Oil itself. After it had been exposed
and had failed to clear itself, it spent a fortune on advertising,
and with its advertising went statements, reports, ideas for
editorials and “news” items to all the papers of the country.
BIG BUSINESS IN THE WAR
149
The McCann-Erickson advertising agency buttered the bread
of the nation’s press. Then, in September, 1942, Standard Oil
of New Jersey collected a lot of the whitewash, reprinted it
(with special permission; no one refused) in a booklet, and
flooded the nation with copies. The cover reads ''The End of
a Myth (Editors Sum Up),” and an introductory note says that
the case has now been ‘‘greatly clarified, as evidenced in repre¬
sentative newspapers.” Quoted in the booklet were: the New
York Herald Tribune, the Boston Herald, the Evening Star
of Washington, the Sun of New York, the Denver Post, the
New York Times. Representative newspapers!—representative
of big business and the men who control America’s future.
Significantly enough, the very newspapers which sup¬
pressed all charges and evidence of treason by the corporations
were loud in headlining "treason” when an irresponsible Con¬
gressman, one Cox of Georgia, used that term in 1940 about
the workmen at the shipyards at Kearny, New Jersey, who asked
a few cents an hour more pay.
The greatest sitdown strike in American history was being
staged at that time by the aviation industry (led by General
Motors). The government had awarded $85,000,000 for 4,000
planes, but only 33 had been produced by August. "In the
great capital sitdown strike of 1940, which delayed the signa¬
ture of defense contracts and the start of work on most of
them from May, 1940, until the beginning of October,” wrote
1. F. Stone in his book "Business as Usual,” "the aviation
industry was used as a front for the rest of business in its fight
for special tax privileges on defense contracts. Unlike the
strikes of labor, the sitdown strike of capital in the summer of
1940 had the support of the nation’s great newspapers.”
For the rest of the story (suppressed by almost all the
newspapers) the reader is referred to the book just quoted and
to pages 252 to 267 of "Facts and Fascism.” Anaconda’s de¬
fective wire, the Curtiss-Wright defective airplane engines, and
the U. S. Cartridge Company’s defective bullets are briefly
noted, also the general charges against the Mellon Aluminum
Company, United States Steel, the duPont General Motors,
150 1000 AMERICANS
and the other leaders of the automobile industry, the rubber
barons, and all the rest.
The defense of the nation had been entrusted to a few
corporations. The major part of the many-billion dollar war
budget was apportioned to 83 firms. Led by the great powers,
industry, which later boasted it won the war, betrayed the
nation—betrayed it for thirty billion pieces of silver. The evi¬
dence was given the country in government reports, but never
reached the people. The press stood in the way.
The activities of big business interested a conservative
Republican named William Allen White, one of the few honest
editors of the nation. He tried to explain it in this way (in his
Emporia Gazette, after a visit to Washington, in May, 1943):
“One cannot move about Washington without bumping into
the fact that we are running two wars—a foreign war and a
domestic one.
“The domestic war is in the various war boards. Every great
commodity industry in this country is organized nationally and
many of them, perhaps most of them, are parts of great national
organizations, cartels, agreements, which function on both sides of
the battle front.
“Here in Washington every industry is interested in saving its
own self. It wants to (ome out of the war with a whole hide and
with its organization unimpaired, legally or illegally.
“One is surprised to find men representing great commodity
trusts or agreements or syndicates planted in the various war
boards. It is silly to say New Dealers run this show. It’s run largely
by absentee owners of amalgamated industrial wealth, men who
either directly or through their employers control small minority
blocks, closely organized, that manipulate the physical plants of
these trusts.
“For the most part these managerial magnates are decent,
patriotic Americans. They have great talents. If you touch them in
nine relations of life out of ten, they are kindly, courteous, Chris¬
tian gentlemen.
“But in the tenth relation, where it touches their own organi¬
zation, they are stark mad, ruthless, unchecked by God or man,
paranoiacs, in fact, as evil in their design as Hitler.
“They are determined to come out of this war victorious for
their own stockholders—which is not surprising. It is understand¬
able also for Hitler to desire to come out of this war at any cost
victorious for the German people.
“But this attitude of the men who control the great commodity
BIG BUSINESS IN THE WAR 151
industries, and who propose to run them according to their own
judgment and their own morals, do not make a pretty picture for
the welfare of the common man.
“These international combinations of industrial capital are
fierce troglodyte animals with tremendous power and no social
brains. They hover like an old silurian reptile about our decent,
more or less Christian civilization—like great dragons in this mod¬
ern day when dragons are supposed to be dead.“
Although Mr. White was America’s bravest editor and
publisher, he did not name the troglodytes and silurian reptiles.
CHAPTER 12
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER
“Finally, concentration of economic power emerges
Into concentration of political power, with the result that
small groups of powerful interests control the State and
National political life.“—Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives.
The most powerful family in America is the duPont family.
It is not unaware of its power.
In an office memorandum which the Munitions Investiga¬
tion made public (during the hearing, September 18, 1936)
one of its chief executives. Major K. K. V. Casey, speaking for
the duPonts, said: “This is our country. . .
Under investigation at that very moment was the failure
of the most important disarmament conference of the League
of Nations to that date. When the testimony was concluded,
Chairman Nye reported:
“After the whole (Geneva) conference was over and the muni¬
tions people of the world had made the treaty a satisfactory one to
themselves, we find that Colonel Simons (of the duPonts) is report¬
ing that even the State Department realized, in effect, who con¬
trolled the Nation.”
America's “merchants of death” diversified their business.
In the Second World War they claimed, no doubt correctly,
that their chief enterprise was no longer gunpowder and more
modern explosives. Instead of being the leading American
member of the Dynamit cartel, which had divided the world
among five or six corporations, it had become the American
member of the Big Three which divided the world for chemical
exploitation: DuPont-Imperial Chemicals-I. G. Farben. There
was more money in chemicals than in munitions, and the
money came in every week, war or no war.
But I. G. Farben was discovered to be one of the great
paymasters of Hitler and its chief owners the leading Nazis.
152
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER
153
The cartel axis had armed Fascism, not the Democracies, and
all the evidence pointed at 1. G. Farben as one o£ the forces
which inspired the Nazi war to dominate the whole world.
So, in June, 1946, when the shattered world went into
conferences on atomic power and the duPont firm was accused
of attempting to monopolize a force which would either destroy
the universe—or free the inhabitants of the earth from want
and fear—it again issued a denial, saying it had received only
$1 from the American government for its patriotic part in
atomic developments and owned no patent rights whatever.
That was true.
“As for I. G. Farben,” concluded the duPont statement,
“the implication that the duPont Company had any connection
with the German company of a nature detrimental to the
United States or the United Nations, is just as far from the
truth as Pravda's comment that atomic research was ‘sold to
private monopolies.’ ”
On January 6, 1944, the United States Government had
indicted the duPonts and Imperial Chemicals Industries of
Britain for forming a cartel with I. G. Farben of Germany
and Mitsui of Japan. But this was not the first time that the
duPonts had been under government investigation. The docu¬
mentary evidence produced by the Nye-Vandenberg munitions
investigation, and the La Follette-Thomas civil liberties in¬
vestigation, and others, includes the following charges:
1. The duPonts secretly helped in the armament of Ger¬
many, and especially aided Hitler. Munitions Hearings, Part
12; for a full summary of this and Hoover expose see In Fact,
February 1 and 8, 1942.
2. The duPonts were aided in this work by the Secretary
of Commerce, who was later elected President of the United
States, with duPont among his largest financial backers. The
man: Herbert Hoover (Part 9, Munitions Investigation, 73rd
Congress—note especially pp. 2138, 2140, 2143, 214B, 2158,
2166-70, 2173-76, 2242.)
3. I'he duPonts control the largest auto firm. General
Motors, which, along with the rest of the industry, refused for
154
1000 AMERICANS
months to convert to tanks and planes. (Documentation in
Facts & Fascism, pp. 254, 262-264.) Also blocked standardiza¬
tion o£ tank engines. (In Fact, November 23, 1942.)
4. The duPonts are among the largest financial interests
in the National Association of Manufacturers, which was or¬
ganized for one purpose: to smash labor unions. (Part 6,
report 6, La Follette Investigation; see Appendix 19.)
5. The duPonts were among the largest financial backers
of the Liberty League, and its affiliates, which included the
Sentinels of the Republic, the anti-Semitic wing of the first
really important American Fascist movement. (Black Lobbying
Investigation; see Appendix 22.)
6. The duPonts put more money into the presidential
elections every four years than any other ruling American
family listed in TNEC Monograph 29. The duPonts and A. P.
Sloan, of General Motors, put up $9,000 or 17% of the $53,700
spent in the Republican campaigns in South Dakota.
7. The duPonts also helped arm Japan. Mitsui paid the
duPonts $900,000 in 1932 for nitric acid-ammonia explosive
formula. (Munitions Hearings.)
8. The duPonts, General Motors, and other American
corporations conspired with Nazi representatives Baron von
Tippleskirch and Baron von Killinger for a commercial and
political alliance with leading businessmen and Republicans.
(Congressional Record, August 20, 1942, pp. A3364-66; inserted
by Representative John M. Coffee of Washington, from docu¬
ments supplied by the author of this book.)
The foregoing “bibliography*' of public documents may
serve as an inspiration for someone who could find a publisher
courageous enough to print a book on the DuPont Empire.
Space here permits only a short summary of two episodes which,
however, show the continuity of the DuPont Empire's inter¬
national policy.
(1) The story of the duPonts, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Hitler.
The Versailles Peace Conference having failed to make
peace, the League of Nations held conferences year after year
for the purpose of disarming the world, planning some cures
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER 155
for its economic ills, and establishing international justice.
In 1925, when rumors abounded that Germany was arming
secretly, a disarmament conference was planned in Geneva.
In the course of the Munitions Investigation * it was re¬
vealed that the American Secretary of Commerce, no less a
person than the future president, Herbert Hoover, sent the
munitions makers telegrams to come to Washington for a secret
conference to form a program for joint action against dis¬
armament at Geneva. The duPonts and other powder and gun
makers received copies. Here is the important paragraph from
the Hoover invitation as received by Winchester Repeating
Arms Company:
“You are invited to send a representative to an informal pre¬
liminary conference to discuss the economic phases of the forth¬
coming Geneva Conference for the control of the International
Trade in Arms, Munitions, and Implements of War. ... It is im¬
portant that the American representative at Geneva be fully posted
as to the views of American manufacturers of sporting arms and
ammunitions so that he may be able to safeguard their interests.
. . . Draft convention being mailed you today.” (Page 2138)
Testimony further revealed that the duPonts and others
knew of the coming disarmament conference before the Amer¬
ican people were told, and that they began having conferences
with General Ruggles before his official appointment to the
conference, and that they called on United States Government
officials, especially Army and Navy men, before any word of
the conference became public. The great munitions lobby went
into action to sabotage disarmament, as later hearings proved.
On the witness stand Ir^n<§e duPont read a report made to
him by his representatives at the Hoover conference:
“The meeting was called to order by Secretary Hoover who
suggested that the representatives present express their views, and
that these views be put in writing and a committee be appointed to
represent the interested industries at a later meeting, at which, it
was hoped, that the delegates appointed by our Government to
attend the Geneva Conference would be present. ... It was the
unanimous opinion of the representatives of the industry that there
were grave objections to the proposed draft in its present
form. . . .” (Page 2140)
• Evidence is from Part 9, Munitions Hearings.
156
1000 AMERICANS
DuPont admitted the lobbying—he called it “conferences”
—with General Ruggles. He read a report made to him by his
representative, Colonel Aiken Simons, March 25, 1925, 18 days
before the public announcement that the United States would
send a delegation to Geneva. Colonel Simons reported:
“As directed, I called on General G. L. Ruggles, Assistant
Chief of Ordnance who is to go to Geneva. . . .
“General Ruggles stated that the United States was committed
on the policy of cooperation in the limitation program, and that
the following license plan seemed to be the most harmless . . . the
War Department would take care that the Department of State
protected such American industries. ... To which I replied that
this had not been done heretofore. . . . General Ruggles then sug¬
gested that the license be put under the Departmnt of Commerce
(Hoover), which I agreed was better.” (Page 2143)
Senator Clark asked:
“Does it strike you as singular that a delegate to the Geneva
Conference, whose appointment was considered as being very secret,
should be in close conference with your (duPont’s) representative
on the subject two weeks before his appointment was announced
by tlie State Department?”
Ir<§n^e duPont:
“All I can say is that apparently he did.”
Senator Nye asked duPont why he wanted the licensing
placed in Hoover’s hands. DuPont replied:
“I should think that the Department of Commerce would be
more competent to handle a commercial transaction, probably, than
would the State Department. . . (Page 2146)
Senator Nye:
“Mr. duPont, how extensive back in 1924 had been the con¬
tributions of tlie duPonts to the cause of the two political parties,
the major political parties?”
DuPont:
“. . . these records were all sent in to you.”
Nye:
“The record is not complete . . . the total contributions to
the Republican Party in 1924 were $34,096.64 ... Do you sup-
157
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER
pose there could have been any relationship between those con¬
tributions and the attitude of General Ruggles?’*
DuPont: “Certainly not,”
Nye: “Or the attitude of Secretary Hoover?”
DuPont: “Certainly not.” (Page 2147)
Throughout the testimony on the Geneva Conference it
was developed by the Munitions Investigation that the United
States State Department was in favor of disarmament and
that there was a conflict with the Commerce Department.
Hoover had conferred with the munitions makers, was in favor
of the munitions business making money, while the State De¬
partment sought to check this trade. Chairman Nye read from
C^olonel Simons’ memorandum:
“Mr. Hoover stated that the United States will have to agree
to some form of licensing but that he intended to have a system
whereby all United States customs commissioners would have abso¬
lute instructions to issue licenses automatically upon presentation
of a consular visa and that every effort would be made by the
United States Government to eliminate red tape, delay, or hin¬
drance. In the case of some large and purely military materials
such as heavy guns, battleships, etc., it might be necessary to refer
the matter to Washington but even then every effort would be
made to eliminate delay or annoyance to the manufacturer.” (Page
2158)
In other words, the United States would go through the
form of an armaments limitation conference in Geneva, after
which the efforts of the President and the State Department
would be circumvented, and the merchants of death could do
business without “annoyance.”
The memorandum incidentally reveals that in the call to
his conference Mr. Hoover referred to the Geneva affair as
one dealing with “sporting arms and ammunition.” In his
promise to the duPont lobbyist he refers to big guns and
battleships.
Chairman Nye:
“It was in June, Mr. duPont, that Colonel Simons summed up
the result of the Geneva Conference in what is offered now as
Exhibit 847. This is a letter [reads] . , . :
“ ‘In reference to our conversation regarding the International
158
1000 AMERICANS
Convention on the Trade in Munitions, it may be of interest to
you to hear that on my recent visit to Washington I saw a copy of
the convention finally signed at Geneva, and it is not nearly as bad
as we thought it was going to be. There will be some few incon¬
veniences to the manufacturers of munitions in their export trade,
but in the main they will not be hampered materially. . . .*
“After the whole conference was over and the munitions
people of the world had made the treaty a satisfactory one to them¬
selves, we find again that Colonel Simons is reporting that even the
State Department realized, in effect, who controls the Nation. . .
(Pages 2166-7)
Chairman Nye:
“Here, after all, is very, very clearly demonstrated a fact or
facts which make it clear that when our Government enters into
negotiations with other governments looking to a particular agree¬
ment, it does not necessarily imply that all the departments of
Government are in agreement. One department of government may
agree to participate in a conference with others, but there is not an
assurance in that offer that other departments are going to co¬
operate and that the Government as a whole will finally agree.
“In fact, there seems to have been in the case of this contro¬
versy here rather emphatic proof that irrespective of the wishes and
the interests of the State Department to participate in a conference
that would accomplish something really worthwhile as respects
control in the sale of arms over the world, they were seriously
hampered by the War Department, seriously hampered by the Com¬
merce Department (Herbert Hoover) who responded to every beck
and call of the munitions industry to see that there was an up¬
setting of the plans that were uppermost in the minds of those
who were opposed to the work of the conference." (Pages 2169-70)
As the Munitions hearings progressed it was evident that
the munitions industry, headed by the duPonts, wanted to
share the profits from the secret arming of Germany, in viola¬
tion of all treaties. Here is some of the testimony:
Senator Vandenberg:
“I want to make a general statement ... so that it will be
understood what it is we are undertaking to do. We shall discuss
the rearming of Germany and Austria. . , . We find ourselves
with a direct interest in the fruits of the Versailles adventure. . . .
If sinister influences have defeated the attempt at limitation in this
instance (Geneva conference), we are warned against the menace.
. . . Here was the greatest attempt in the history of the world to
effect a disarmament control. . . . Certainly we can dismiss the
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER
159
supposition that these Allied Governments have permitted the
rearming of Germany . . . because they wanted them to disarm.
. . . The alternative proposition must be that forces, even more
powerful than governments themselves, have had a stake in this
outcome and have influenced it. We are hunting the possible
identification of such forces. . . . There were and are two sources
of profit, external to Germany, and the others which could exist in
respect to the rearming of Germany. ... One source could be
those who made the direct sales. . . . Major Casey, did any of your
company representatives in Europe report to you as long ago as
1924 or 1925 the existence of some sort of a secret French-British
report on the rearming of Germany and Austria?*'
Major K. K. V. Casey:
“I believe there was such a memorandum.” (Pages 2173-76)
One more document provides the final proof that the
Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, was of real help to
the munitions makers. This document is Exhibit 831 in the
Munitions inquiry. It consists of a report from Colonel Simons
to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New Haven
and other gun makers, and says in part:
“National legislation re: Arms and ammunition for export.
“In the Spring of 1925 it became known that an international
congress was to be held in Geneva for the purpose of limiting the
exportation of munitions and that it was probable that efforts were
to be made by certain foreign elements to prohibit the private
manufacture of munitions. On March 28, 1925, Mr. Hoover, Secre¬
tary of Commerce, telegraphed a number of American manufac¬
turers. . . . This conference was presided over by Mr. Hoover. . . .
“We found Mr. Hoover very sympathetic and helpful through¬
out and with his assistance a call was sent to 36 other industries.
. . . Resolutions were drafted showing the objections of the Amer¬
ican manufacturers to the proposed international agreement. . . .
“It is believed that by the action of Mr. Hoover in appointing
this committee and the committee's subsequent work, the Geneva
Conference was prevented from adopting international agreements
which would have been burdensome to American manufacturers,
and so far as I know the committee has never been dissolved.
[Signed] Aiken Simons
[Dated] February 22, 1928.” (Page 2242)
The final word by the chairman of the investigations:
“This letter finds Colonel Simons crediting Mr. Hoover as
Secretary of Commerce with the put-out, and the committee with
160 1000 AMERICANS
an assist, in that particular, in making a failure of that Geneva
Conference. , .
The Nye-Vandenberg Committee also reported that before
and after the arrival of Herr Hitler as chief of the German
state, the duPonts were among the American firms helping in
its rearmament.
German Big Industry began paying Hitler in 1923. (Fritz
Thyssen of the Steel Trust gives all the details in his book,
“I Paid Hitler.”) What Big Business wanted was security against
any attempt by the German Republic to make industry pay its
share of the money and suffering which losing the war forced
upon the German people; industry wanted light taxes, free
enterprise (which is also the National Association of Manu¬
facturers* slogan), and especially protection against any exten¬
sion of the rights of labor (such as the Wagner Act in America,
for example). Since Germany was nominally a republic in
control of the Social Democratic Party, industry was afraid
that labor would be top dog. It soon found that it could do
business with the Social Democrats. But it could not fool the
working people of Germany.
At this time Thyssen heard Hitler fool some working
people. Hitler called his party N-A-Z-I, which is a contraction
for National Socialist Workers Party, and he made promises
of a socialistic nature and offered the workers control of the
state. Thyssen knew this was a fraud and tliat Hitler would
take money from Big Business. He started paying in 1923, just
after the Hitler Beer Hall fiasco, and he got others to contribute
later, so that in 1932, when Hitler s star waned and it looked
as if a liberal coalition would keep control, the cartels of Big
Business poured out millions and put Hitler in power in 1933.
The duPonts knew what was happening. Testifying before
the Munitions Committee, Wendell R. Swint, director of
foreign relations of the DuPont Empire, said he knew that the
Krupps “had developed a scheme whereby industry could
contribute to the [Nazi] Party Organization funds, and in fact
every industry is called upon to pay 1 / 2 % of the annual wage
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER 161
and salary roll to the Nazi organization/' The great I. G.
Farben also informed Swint that German industry was the
backer of Hitler’s Nazi outfit. Swint testified that Dr. Carl Bosch
of L G. Farben told him that it was “a question of Fascism
and Bolshevism.” Actually Bosch was repeating the Hitler
propaganda, because at the time Germany was a coalition goV'
ernment ranging from the Conservatives on the Right, the
Centrum (Catholic Party) in t,he center, and the Social Demo¬
crats on the left, all following a policy of appeasement of
Naziism.
The Munitions Committee also obtained the information
that even after Roosevelt had been elected, but before he took
office, and while Hoover was still president, Felix duPont
signed a contract with a Hitler agent who gave his name as
Giera but who was actually the international spy Peter Brenner.
This occurred February 1, 1933. At this time it was still illegal
to send munitions to Germany but the duPonts appointed
Giera for the purpose of smuggling them via Holland. The
contract appoints Giera agent for Germany and Holland, “to
negotiate the sale of military propellants and military explo¬
sives to purchasers located in that territory.” Letters seized by
the Nye committee show that Giera and Colonel William N.
Taylor, duPont’s Paris man, and Major Casey, discussed means
of smuggling into Germany. Taylor is quoted by the Senate
committee as saying it was easy to run guns up the Dutch rivers
into Germany because there was no inspection, and “‘in view
of the Taylor reports regarding active smuggling of arms into
Germany via Holland the provision that the Giera agency
covered purchases of military propellants and explosives in
Holland ... is most significant. Furthermore, the amazing
contract, covering also the sale of military propellants and
explosives, in Germany, contained no reservations whatsoever
respecting the restrictions on such military material in Germany
laid down in the Treaty of Versailles and by reference in the
treaty between the United States and Germany.”
Lammot duPont informed Harry (later Lord) McGowan
1000 AMERICANS
162
of Imperial Chemicals of the Giera deal, and on March 6, 1933,
the British munitions lord replied that “our German friends
. , . have not been idle. ... I am sure that when freedom to
manufacture is granted for home use . . . they will expect to
have a permanent position in the business." But McGowan
did not want duPont to horn in on his cartelized field, so he
asked duPont to cancel Giera. DuPont paid Giera $25,000,
and listed the money paid the spy as “expense money" in its
income tax return. No one went to jail.
The duPonts immediately sent Giera, a German spy, to
Japan to work for them, the Senate Committee disclosed. When
Giera applied for a job to the duPonts he boasted he was a spy,
had worked in thirteen countries, and for Germany against the
interests of the United States in the First World War. He was
one of the spies employed here by Captain Von Papen and
Captain Boy-Ed from 1914 to 1917. After April 6, 1917, when
the United States declared war on Germany, Giera, the German
spy, “quit the Germans and went to work for us (duPonts) to
save his neck," it was testified by Major Casey. (Munitions
Hearings, Part 12.)
The evidence is conclusive that the duPonts participated
in the arming of Germany and aided the Nazis, and that the
duPonts had friendly conferences with Herbert Hoover, as
Secretary of Commerce, regarding easing of the limitations
on the munitions business while they were helping to arm
Germany.
In 1928 the DuPont Empire contributed one of the big
pieces of money to the campaign which elected Herbert Hoover
president.
The curious thing about 1928 was that this was exactly
the year the DuPont Empire and Anaconda Copper decided
to subsidize the campaign of a Catholic liberal, Alfred E. Smith.
(The religious issues and hatred raised in this campaign, like
the religious issues raised against Lehman for Governor of
New York, illustrate how much Nazi-Fascism we have in this
country, but that should be the subject of another volume.)
However, although the duPonts were the big financial
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER
163
backers of the Democratic party, they did not forget how
Hoover had worked for them, and so they also became one of
the main backers of the Republican campaign. They simply
could not lose.
The Republicans raised $9,433,604 to buy the election for
Hoover. But that figure does not tell the story. A handful of
Big Businessmen did the paying. Exactly half, almost $5,000,-
000, came from a few men each of whom put up $5,000 to
$50,000, or more. In 1932, when Hoover, a discredited man,
ran again, 112 persons who had profited by his presidency or
hoped to profit, put up 40% of the millions foi his campaign.
(For documentation, see ‘‘Money in Elections,*’ by Professor
Louise Overacker.)
In 1928 Alfred duPont gave the Hoover fund $25,000;
Lammot gave $10,000; T. Coleman $10,000; Felix was listed
in the one to five thousand class. Alfred P. Sloan, of General
Motors, gave $25,000 and the Fisher Brothers of General
Motors and Fisher Bodies put up $100,000. In addition there
are loans, and deficits which the duPonts helped pay.
(2) The full story of the duPont cartel deal with the Nazis
appears in Monograph 1, Economic and Political Aspects o^
International Cartels, Committee on Military Affairs, 1944.
It is noted on page 6 that “there was a gentleman’s agreement
between duPont and 1. G. Farben by which each was to give
the other first option on new processes and products,” after
which an interesting story is told concerning the use of acrylic
products. For general use this plastic was being sold to com¬
mercial molders at 85^ a pound; it was the identical stuff being
sold to dentists at 45^ an ounce, and there was danger that the
latter would soon find out how they were being robbed. How¬
ever, this was no great problem for free enterprise. If arsenic
or another dangerous poison could be added to the plastic
sold for 85^, it could no longer be employed for dentures.
And so it was decided to add 1% of the poison. (Page 19)
When war impended, the cartel began worrying about
the future. The document reveals that the American members
promised the Nazis they would restore the contracts and gentle-
164
1000 AMERICANS
men's agreements after the war, no matter which side won.
Where profits are, there is no fatherland. Regarding stock
jointly owned in an Argentine firm, the document states:
‘‘DuPont supported Imperial Chemical Industries on this point
[that stock could not be delivered to the Nazis in wartime] but
assured IG that after the war it would endeavor to restore IG’s
participation.
“The problems faced by a neutral in maintaining its cartel
connections in wartime are illustrated by duPont’s relations with
ICI and IGF from 1939 to 1941 . . . DuPont agreed to withhold
IG's information from the British. . . .
“As the anti-Nazi policy of the United States became more
apparent, some cartelized American companies reduced, though
they did not abandon, their commitments to German companies.
“DuPont, for example, continued during 1940 to negotiate
agreements with IGF.“
(The quotations are from pages 62 and 64.)
In 1941 there was a resolution adopted by the duPont
Company which declared that dealings would “remain sus¬
pended until the termination of the present international
emergency." Under the heading “forestalling seizure of enemy
property," the document tells of assignments of patents in war¬
time, quoting from otlicial duPont contracts, adding:
“Nevertheless both parties agree to reassign all assigned patents
and patent applications at any time."
Finally, the document states (on page 74) that the duPonts
apparently had an understanding that many, if not all, of its
cartel agreements would be resumed after the war.
The evidence of duPont undertaking to restore the Nazi
cartel after the war was first presented by Assistant Attorney
General Wendell Berge who (on September 7, 1944, before
the Kilgore Committee) declared:
“The danger is very real that the monopolistic firms of Ger¬
many will retain their power through the maintenance and re¬
sumption of cartel agreements. For instance, the I. G. Farben has
had arrangements with duPont and with the British Imperial
Chemical Industries for the division of the South American market.
A report by the duPont foreign relations department to the duPont
executive committee, dated February 9, 1940, states:
DUPONT, HOOVER, AND HITLER 165
“ ‘The duPont Co. informed I. G. that they intend to use their
good offices after the war to have the I. G. participation restored.*
“A communication from duPont to Imperial Chemical Indus¬
tries later in 1940 states with respect to the obligations to I. G.
Farben (termed in the communication ‘former shareholders’):
“ ‘I think we have all agreed that there is a moral commit¬
ment, if and when circumstances permit, for these former share¬
holders to become shareholders again but the basis on which this
may be done will have to be discussed at that time.* **
At this point Chairman Kilgore interrupted to ask if the
duPont-I, G. Farben commitments were similar to the Standard
Oil-I. G. Farben commitments, which Senator Truman had
held treasonable, and Mr. Berge replied: “That is correct.”
Both Senator Kilgore and Mr. Berge insisted on the danger
of the Standard Oil and duPont treaties to restore their deals
with the Nazis. The conclusions of these men is best expressed
by Mr. Berge’s statement in his presentation of the evidence in
the duPont case. He said:
“As the military defeat of Germany grows near, we will see a
determined effort on the part of the Germans to save their indus¬
trial power.
“The Germans know that their best chance of preparing for
another war will be through the maintenance of their monopolistic
industrial firms. These firms have had agreements with British and
American industry. If these agreements can be continued, revived,
or renewed in the future, this country can win the war but Ger¬
many will have gone far toward the winning of the peace.
“During the next few months we must be prepared to witness
the exodus from Germany of political agents who will announce
that they are ordinary business men. , . .**
The public does not know the facts, has never been able
to get the evidence. The newspapers, by suppressing the real
duPont story for generations, makes it easy for the duPonts to
speak ais if evidence does not exist.
CHAPTER 13
THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID
Only the older generation will remember the ogres of their
time: old John D. Rockefeller, the man who had trimmed
widows and orphans out of millions and whose armed forces
shot down his workers at Ludlow, Colorado; and old John
Pierpont Morgan, whose name was used as a synonym for Wall
Street and the love of money which is the root of all evil.
In the course of time the curse was erased from the
Rockefeller name, thanks very much to the most efficient use
of a new arm, the public relations propagandist or plutogogue,
as personified by Mr. Ivy Lee, the man who elevated press
agentry from the sawdust of Barnum &: Bailey’s circus and the
blackmail of department store advertisers.
As for ‘‘Morgan” and “Wall Street,” the job of reconver¬
sion and rehabilitation was done so well, so secretly and so com¬
pletely, that only the Populist remnants, then the Socialists,
and later on the Communists, dared to use these terms in any¬
thing but a tone of reverence and respect, earning along with
many crackpots and irrational fanatics the terms “crackpots”
and “irrational fanatics” tiom the respectable press and respect¬
able citizenry.
A whole generation has been spent in whitewashing Wall
Street, gilding the name of Morgan. So restored to public favor
have both become that they suffered no ill effects whatever in
1946 when the Department of Justice instituted an investiga¬
tion which produced the evidence that six most powerful
banking groups of the nation, headed by Morgan, Stanley Sc
Company, hold a monopoly on the nation’s commerce, ma¬
nipulate gigantic corporations, railroads, utilities and banks,
and so completely dominate big industry that the term “free
enterprise”—which was also a semantic trick to take the curse
off the ill-fated term “capitalism” after the breakdown of 1929
—could become the homeric laugh of the century.
166
THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID
167
Times have changed. Within one generation we have seen
the two most powerful chains of newspapers, Hearst’s and Roy
Howard’s, change their politics and their social coloration, the
former from a demogogical crusade against “the interests” and
“Wall Street” and Morgan and the like, to an impassioned
whitewasher of Standard Oil, great monopolies, once painted
with horns and a tail; the latter from tribune of the people
to attacker of the Wagner Act, and all the New Deal laws
which helped labor. The World passed away. Its smaller
brother, the St, Louis Post-Dispatch, continues to crusade and
to speak for people, but it is as it has always been, a regional
voice instead of a national clarion. The other chains, McCor-
niick-Patterson, Gannett, and the newcomer, John S. Knight’s
string of five, do not crusade for the public welfare.
These chains and their colleagues which make up the
opinion-forming press are today not only on the side of Wall
Street and Morgan but they are so much a part of the same
financial system that they can be expected to whitewash but
never to expose the rulers of America and their activities. The
historical fact is that the Government, despite pressures and
politics, does take legal actions, but no one arouses public
opinion any more, no one mobilizes it, nothing much happens.
This is especially true when the House of Morgan and
the financial and industrial giants of Wall Street are under fire.
Throughout a large part of 1946 and 1947 a Federal
Grand Jury sat in New York City listening to the Department
of Justice present the evidence on which it requested an indict¬
ment of the Big Six banks: the six most powerful private
banking houses remaining in the nation: Morgan, Stanley &
Company, First Boston Corporation, Dillon Read & Company,
Kuhn, Loeb & Company, Barney & Company, and Blythe &
Company. Also involved were the smaller firms: Mellon Securi¬
ties Corporation, Lazard Freres, Lehman Bros., Kidder, Pea¬
body Sc Company, Halsey, Stuart Sc Company, Goldman, Sachs
Sc Company, Stone & Webster Securities Corporation, and
many others.
There are 730 members of the Investment Bankers Asso-
168
1000 AMERICANS
ciation, but 38 of them manage 91% of the nation's business,
and of these 38 the Big Six of Wall Street did 57% of the
total. Fourteen additional New York bankers did 21% of the
total, and 18 outsiders—with Wall Street connections, of course
—did another 12%. This left 692 firms with only 9% of the
nation’s financing.
The Big Six divided the job in this way:
Morgan, Stanley Sc Co., $2,142,000,000, or 23.2% of total;
First Boston Corporation, $986,000,000, or 10%;
Dillon, Read & Co., $680,000,000, or 7.4%;
Kuhn, Loeb 8c Co., $618,000,000, or 6.7%;
Smith, Barney Sc Co., $472,000,000, or 5.1%;
Blythe 8c Co., $388,000,000, or 4.2%.
In the five-year period 1934-1939, according to TNEC
Monograph 24, the investment banks handled a total of
$36,100,000,000 and in the first six months of 1946, according
to a Department of Justice representative who said the figures
were not complete, the business done was $4,465,800,000.
It is obvious from these colossal figures that any manipula¬
tion, any monopolization or any action not for the public bene¬
fit taken by a few men and a few firms controlling so many
billions of dollars must seriously affect the economics of the
nation.
To the Federal Grand Jury the Department of Justice
stated that these bankers did in fact have a monopoly, and that
they used their power for certain purposes, so that they main¬
tained a stranglehold on the nation’s commerce.
The Department charged the bankers with actually decid¬
ing upon which industries were to be helped to expand, and
which were to be retarded. It accused the bankers of regulat¬
ing areas for competition and for monopoly; of fixing prices;
of deciding on which technological improvements and patents
should be made available to the public, and which were to be
retarded or completely suppressed.
It accused the bankers of initiating stocks and bonds
issues, rather than waiting for an industry to come to them
for help.
THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID 169
It maintained that the anti-trust laws were being violated
to the detriment of the public.
It concluded that here, at the pinnacle of all financial and
industrial power, there was complete monopoly, the very
antithesis of “free enterprise,’* which, according to the Na¬
tional Association of Manufacturers and the press, is “the
American way of life.’*
The charges, evidence and conclusions were of utmost
importance to the people of the United States. An informed
electorate frequently is able through the pressure of public
opinion and the use of the ballot box to restore Democratic
procedure which the founders of the Republic wrote into the
Constitution, and notably into the Bill of Rights. But it must
be informed. And since most of the press does not inform the
public—whenever there is danger of making an enemy among
the thousand most powerful Americans and inviting a financial
loss as a result—it stands to reason that most of the public will
not know the facts and will not be able to act intelligently.
In this instance there was almost complete silence.
Not a word appeared in the most powerful newspaper of
the country, the New York Times, although it was the Times
itself, long before the investigation began—on September 7,
1944, to be exact—which first mentioned its probability.
“Monopoly Attack On Wall Street Looms'* was its heading at
the time, but when the investigation—not at all an “attack"—
was under way, the Times forgot all about it. In its 1944 news
item it did not, of course, mention the House of Morgan and
since Morgan was under investigation the silence of the Times
—and the rest of the press—is understandable.
The news appeared in the August 5, 1946, issue of In Fact.
It was picked up and headlined in Labor, the ofiicial organ of
the Railroad Brotherhoods, on August 17, and reprinted in a
few papers from then on, notably the New York Post (August
14—but no names mentioned) and PM on October 25. The
tremendous importance of the investigation was recognized by
Senator Murray of Montana who inserted the entire In Fact
article into the Congressional Record, and since the Record is
170
1000 AMERICANS
privileged, all excuses which newspapers might have been able
to make in the past became useless. It was news, and all names
were named, and no one could get into trouble for reprinting
the Record, But no one did.
It would be useless to question Heart’s International News
Service or Howard’s United Press on this matter. But the
Associated Press is a “cooperative” of more than a thousand
dailies and it is dedicated to presenting all the news without
the bias of any one owner and it is loud in defense of the code
of ethics of journalism. A note to Kent Cooper was rewarded
with a carbon copy of its report. It was dated August 9 and
consisted of less than one typewritten page, say 250 words.
Its first paragraph read:
“New York, Aug. 9 (AP)—Executives of some of the nation’s
largest investment banking houses, who declined the use of their
names, said today that agents of the Justice Department’s anti-trust
division have undertaken an intensive investigation into past and
present investment banking practices.”
Paragraph 2 said the Justice Department declined com¬
ment, and the rest of the page was a little speculation.
No names were named. None of the charges of the Depart¬
ment, sensational as they were, was mentioned. Newspapers
receiving the Associated Press service did not print the few
words they received. And so, while technically no charge can
now be brought against the Associated Press of joining in a
“conspiracy of silence” with Hearst and Howard and certain
newspapers which have their own news services, the end result,
silence, was achieved without conspiracy. Just as “a lie which
is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies,” “a lie which is part
a truth is a harder matter to fight,” so a news item which is
part of a fact is worse than one which is totally a lie, or one
which is totally suppressed.
Total suppression was the fate of the 359-page official gov¬
ernment report, “Economic Concentration and World War II,”
issued by the Smaller War Plants Corporation through the
Senate Small Business Committee.
The reason for press silence is obvious: no other docu-
THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID 171
merit ever issued by the government comes so close to naming
the men who own and control America.
Specifically, it lists the “eight interest groups” with Wall
Street roots which dominate the country, controlling 90 of the
200 biggest corporations, and themselves bound together with
interlocking directorates, and united in the two most powerful
civilian organizations of the country, the National Association
of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Com¬
merce. In the words of the document:
“The relatively few giant corporations of the country which
have come to dominate our entire economy are themselves largely
owned by only a few thousand stockholders, and are controlled by a
mere handful of huge financial interests.”
In industry after industry, food, whisky, grocery chains,
soap, rayon, two or three or at most four companies supply
from half to 80% of all the products sold in the country, and
these firms are united through their banking affiliates and their
politico-economic associations; they grow bigger and more
monopolistic with the years, and every man, woman and child
who spends money or for whom money is spent aids them
financially and pays them an extra tribute for monopoly.
Looking ahead, the report foresees the same situation in
the use of atomic power. The government spent $1,300,000,000
for atomic bomb plants which three firms. Union Carbide &
Carbon Company, Eastman Kodak, and duPont operated.
Almost all the equipment was built by two firms. Westing-
house and General Electric. Continues the report:
“The concerns which made the equipment for the manufac¬
ture of atomic materials, and the firms which operated the plants,
will inevitably have a tremendous headstart over all other firms in
scientific knowledge and production ‘know-how* in the adaptation
of atomic power for peacetime uses.”
The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of
a few is obviously one of the greatest threats to American
democracy. Senator Murray said so in introducing the report:
“If we believe that our system of free enterprise should be
preserved, if we believe that the American economy should be the
172
1000 AMERICANS
expression of a free society, then we cannot stand idly by and watch
the march of monopoly to power. We cannot risk the consequences
—for in this struggle, if we are too little and too late, there will be
no second chance.”
If the date of this document and Murray’s address to the
Senate had been in the Bryan era, or even in the 1920’s, there
would undoubtedly have followed a press and political cam¬
paign of great intensity. The front pages would have told the
story, and editorials in the Scripps and Hearst newspaper
chains might have repeated them in a demagogic manner, the
magazines would have explained the significance and the dan¬
ger—and been accused of muckraking.
“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in
every government which has existed under the sun? The gen¬
eralizing and concentration of all powers into one body,’’ Jef¬
ferson wrote, warning of governmental power, whereas here
was the documentary proof of a concentration which threat¬
ened government itself.
The reason for silence in the 1940’s was the mention of
the very ogres of the early days of the century. The ogres had
become the sacred golden bulls of the press.
First, and far ahead, the report placed the House of Mor¬
gan. With one of its banks, the First National, it controlled
41 of the 200 largest non-financial corporations, ten of which
had two or more directors in common with J. P. Morgan 8c
Company. Its financial control was listed as exceeding thirty
billion dollars.
The Kuhn-Loeb control was second largest, eleven bil¬
lions, but it was not diversified; it included thirteen major
railroads, about 22% of the first class mileage of the country.
The Rockefellers controlled more than six billions, the
Mellons a little more than half as much, the duPonts two and a
half billions. Here is the full table as it appeared in the Con¬
gressional Record and as it did not appear in the commercial
press of America:
THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID
173
Morgan-First National—J30-billion plus
industrials:
U. S. Steel
Gen. Electric
Kennecott Copper
Pullman Inc.
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Montgomery Ward 8c Co.
Amer. Radiator 8c Standard
Sanitary Corp.
Glen Alden Coal Co.
Natl. Biscuit Co.
Phila. 8c Reading Coal 8c Iron
Corp.
Continental Oil Co.
St. Regis Paper Co.
Baldwin Locomotive Works
Public Utilities:
Amer. Telephone 8c Telegraph
Co.
Consolidated Edison of N.Y.
Commonwealth 8c Southern
Corp.
United Gas Improvement Co.
Amer. Power 8c Light Co.
Public Service Corp. of N.J.
Electric Power 8c Light Corp.
Niagara Hudson Power Corp.
Columbia Gas 8c Electric Corp,
Natl. Power 8c Light Co.
Inti. Tel. 8c Tel.
Amer. Gas 8c Electric Co.
Railroads:
N.Y. Central R.R.
Alleghany Corp.
Great Northern Ry. Co.
Northern Pacific Ry. Co.
Atchison, Topeka 8c Santa Fe
Southern Pacific
Delaware, Lackawanna 8c
Western
Banks:
Guaranty Trust Co.
Bankers Trust Co.
N.Y. Trust Co.
Rockefeller
Industrials:
Standard Oil of N.J.
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
Standard Oil of Indiana
Standard Oil of Cal.
—|6i/^-billion plus
Atlantic Refining Co.
Ohio Oil Co.
Banks:
Chase National
KuHN-LoEB—$11-BILLION
Public Utilities:
Western Union Telegraph
Railroads:
Pennsylvania R.R.
Union Pacific
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
8c Pacific
Chicago 8c Northwestern
N.Y., New Haven 8c Hartford
Wabash
Boston 8c Maine
M issouri-Kansas-T exas
Delaware 8c Hudson
Lehigh Valley
Banks:
Bank of Manhattan
174
1000 AMERICANS
Mellon—$3-billion plus
Industrials:
Gulf Oil
Koppers Coke
Aluminum Co. of Amer.
Westinghouse
Jones 8c Laughlin Steel Corp.
Pittsburgh Coal Co.
Amer. Rolling Mills
Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Crucible Steel Co. of Amer.
Public Utilities:
United Light 8c Power Co.
Bklyn. Union Gas Co.
Banks:
Mellon Natl. Bank
Union Trust Co.
Railroads:
Virginia Ry. Co.
Chicago Group—$4-billion plus
Industrials:
Inti. Harvester
Armour 8c Co.
Marshall Field 8c Co.
Wilson & Co.
Public Utilities:
Commonwealth Edison Co.
Public Service Corp. of No.
Illinois
Peoples Gas Light 8c Coke Co.
Banks:
Continental Illinois Natl.
Bank 8c Trust Co.
First Natl. Bank of Chicago
Northern Trust Co.
Harris Trust 8c Savings Bank
DuPont—$2i/2-billion plus
Industrials: Banks:
Gen. Motors Natl. Bank of Detroit
E. 1. duPont de Nemours
U.S. Rubber Co.
Cleveland Group—$1i/^-billion
Industrials:
Republic Steel Corp.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
Goodyear Tire 8c Rubber
Inland Steel
Wheeling Steel
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.
Interlake Iron Corp.
Banks:
Cleveland Trust Co.
Boston Group—$1i/^-billion plus
Industrials:
United Fruit Co.
United Shoe Machinery Corp.
U.S. Smelting, Refining 8c
Mining
Public Utilities:
Stone 8c Webster
Edison Electric Illuminating
Co. of Boston
Banks:
First Natl, (incldg. Colony
Trust)
175
THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID
Today, as a generation ago, it is still Wall Street, still
Morgan and still Rockefeller who own and control. Today,
however, the few who still protest—in the name of democracy
and the general welfare—cannot make themselves heard.
CHAPTER 14
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS?
‘*He (Nelson W. Aldrich, majority leader of the U. S.
Senate, father of Winthrop W. Aldrich of the Chase Na¬
tional Bank, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.) was
working now for a definite end—to merge business and
politics in the interest of business; to seize, through politics,
the instrumentalities of government and use them for the
profit of the favored few.’* (Claude Bower’s biography of
Senator Beveridge.)
If it is true that money prevails in national and state elections,
then it must also be true that the men who put up the money,
the handful including the duPonts, Pews, Mellons, Rockefellers
and others frequently named in this volume, also control our
political life, our Congress, and the Presidency itself.
A conspiracy of silence has always existed on this subject.
But in its Sunday edition of January 13, 1924, the New York
World (and its affiliate, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which is
still otie of the few newspapers worthy of being on an honor
roll) did publish the first great and sensational expose of the
purchase of the presidency.
The evidence was supplied by Major J. J. Dickinson, a
former official of the Department of State, and corroborated
by Judge Alton Brooks Parker, who had been defeated by
Theodore Roosevelt, who still remains one of the great myth¬
ical heroes of the American people.
The Roosevelt campaign against Parker was underwritten
“just as they would underwrite building a railroad from here
to San Francisco,” according to Dickinson, by the following
millionaires:
James Stillman (the elder).
E. H. Gary, president of United States Steel, a J. P. Morgan
corporation.
E. H. Harriman, railroad king and banker.
Daniel G. Reid, railroad manipulator, and founder of Amer¬
ican Can Company.
176
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS?
177
George B. Perkins, partner in the House of Morgan.
Charles F. Brooker, head of the brass trust.
Robert L. Bacon, another partner in the House of Morgan.
This list was made known to Parker by Colonel Dan
Lamont, vice-president of the James J. Hill railroads, about
two weeks before the election. On the night before that event
Parker made a speech in which he stated that although Theo¬
dore Roosevelt was running on a trust-busting program it was
all a piece of colossal hypocrisy inasmuch as the trusts them¬
selves secretly were financing his campaign. But Parker did
not name names and he never disclosed the Lamont list,
although the rumors were that he would do so on election day.
Theodore Roosevelt fiercely denied all friendship for the
Rockefellers, the Morgans and the other big powers.
Later, the investigation into the insurance corporation
scandals, conducted by Charles Evans Hughes, revealed that the
New York Life, Equitable and Mutual Life, each had given
$50,000 to the Roosevelt campaign; in 1912 the Clapp Com¬
mittee discovered that Standard Oil had contributed $124,000.
Actually, revelations in a few honest papers, and official
investigations years after the fact, could not inform or arouse
a large number of citizens. To this day few know of this
scandal.
One who was aroused was the great iconoclast of American
letters, Mark Twain. He wrote in his journal that “the World
newspaper convicted Mr. Roosevelt beyond redemption of
having bought his election to the Presidency with money. That
he committed this stupendous crime has long been suspected.”
Of the Roosevelt denial, Mark Twain contended Theodore
Roosevelt added “falsehood to his burden of misconduct.”
Mark Twain adds new facts: A week before election day
Roosevelt became frightened and sent for Harriman, who came
to Washington, and agreed to raise an additional $200,000,
and actually raised $260,000, of which $200,000 was spent in
the City of New York to buy the votes of 50,000 floaters, thus
making a change of 100,000 votes and carrying the Empire
State, and insuring the Republican victory.
178
1000 AMERICANS
Mark Twain remarks that “the rich corporations have
furnished vast sums of money” upon the understanding that
“their monopolies were to be shielded and protected in re¬
turn,” but he calls it “treachery” for Theodore Roosevelt to
follow the popular demand by openly attacking the corpora¬
tions while secretly taking their money to buy the presidency.
“Mr. Harriman and those others had bought him and paid for
him,” concludes the noted author.
Following the .1912 Clapp Committee investigation, the
first of a new series of laws was passed aimed at ending the
purchase of elections. But only “ostensibly.” The law resulting
from the Clapp investigation stopped corporations from con¬
tributing to political campaigns but did not stop corporation
presidents, directors or whatnots, including the duPont two-
year-old children, from putting up five or ten or a hundred
thousand dollars.
In the long history of election money, noted only briefly
in two books and an occasional chapter in a few others, some
diverse motives can be seen, some apparent contradictions—
as, for example, the support of Alfred E. Smith, noted Catholic
layman, by John J. Raskob, of the DuPont empire, another
noted Catholic layman. He actually handed out $249,500, ad¬
mitted it in a document which appeared on page 2271 of the
9th volume of the Munitions Industry hearings. The duPonts
and the House of Morgan frequently supported both the
Republican and Democratic candidates, insuring themselves
against loss no matter which contestant won.
In 1932 it was obvious that there would be an upset. But
it was pointed out at that time by leading liberal writers, such
as J. Fred Essaray and Paul Ward, that some of the biggest
industrialists of the land were on friendly terms with Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, and perhaps, after all, he would remain
loyal to what suddenly became known even in the ordinary
newspapers as his “class.”
But in 1936 the outlook was different. Apparently Mr.
Roosevelt meant it when he said he would drive the money-
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS?
179
changers out of the temple, that he would finally conquer the
reactionaries.
The Republican National Committee called a meeting.
Chairman Henry P. Fletcher named sixteen leaders to collect
the money to defeat Roosevelt. He said:
“Most of them have never before participated actively in
politics. . . • Realizing that the American system is threatened and
that the future of the country is menaced, they have agreed to put
their shoulders to the wheel.**
At that time the term “American system” was still pre¬
ferred to the National Association of Manufactuiers’ substitute
for the word “capitalism,** namely: “free enterprise.’* Among
the sixteen collectors named were:
Sewell Lee Avery, president of Montgomery Ward, one¬
time part owner of the Chicago Daily News, ardent labor-
fighter and violator of the new labor laws;
Joseph Newton Pew, Jr., vice-president of Sun Oil
Company;
Ernest Tener Weir, chairman of National Steel, whose
plant at Weirton was notorious for the use of company “goons”
who used force and violence to prevent unionization;
Herbert Lee Pratt, onetime chairman of Standard Oil
of New York;
Edward Lamed Ryerson, Jr., president of Ryerson & Son,
steel and iron company of Chicago.
Chairman of the money-gathering group was William
Brown Bell, president of American Cyanamid.
In 1936 there was announced the first of a series of organ¬
izations which appealed to the public for support. It called
itself the “American Liberty League.” It raised a huge fund
which was spent in the effort to destroy the New Deal by
keeping Franklin Delano Roosevelt out of the White House
for a second term and to destroy the Wagner Act.
The financial tie-up of the Republican Party, the corpora¬
tions, the Liberty League and the super-patriotic organizations
is apparent. The list of contributors to the Republican Na¬
tional Committee and the Liberty League is almost identical.
180 1000 AMERICANS
The former reported the following large contributions for
January and February, 1936:
Junius S. Morgan, son of J. P. Morgan.
H. P. Davison, J. P. Morgan & Co. partner.
George F. Baker, First National Bank of New York
(Morgan) .
Lammot duPont, chairman General Motors; president
duPont de Nemours .
Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., president of General Motors.
W. L. Mellon, director of 32 companies and chairman
of Gulf Oil Corp.
H. E. Manville, Johns-Manville Co.
W. G. Mather, chairman of Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co...
Lester Armour, director of Armour Sc Co .
Philip A. Armour, director of Armour & Co.
Earl F. Reed, counsel to Weirton Steel Co.
Silas Strawn, lawyer, former head of the U. S. Chamber
of Commerce.
Harold S. Vanderbilt, director of over 30 railway com-
William H. Crocker, Crocker National Bank of San
Francisco .
$5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
2,500
5,000
2,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
2,000
3,333
5,000
The Republican committee’s report of June, 1936, showed
contributions of almost half a million dollars, of which the
Rockefellers gave $16,000, the Mellons of Pittsburgh (Andrew
W., Paul, Richard K., Mrs. Sarah Mellon Scaife and Mrs.
Jennie K. Mellon) contributed $25,000 in equal shares, the
Union League Club of New York $15,000, and the following
notables $5,000 each:
William Woodward of New York
J. F. Lincoln of Cleveland
Lorenz Iverson of West Homestead, Pa*
H. G. Dalton of Cleveland
E. R. Crawford of McKeesport, Pa.
Joseph Wilshire of New York
George Whitney of New York
Edward J. Bermingham of Chicago
Mrs. Laura Corrigan of New York
James A. McDonough of New York
ilarry Payne Bingham of New York
Mrs. John T. Pratt of New York
Henry B. duPont of Wilmington, Del.
181
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS?
John M. Schiff of New York
H. H. Timken of Canton, Ohio
B. H. Kroger of Cincinnati
Among the contributors of one to five thousand dollars
were Finley J. Shepard, Mrs. David Bruce, Henry S. Morgan,
Silas H. Strawn, Hallock duPont, John Francis Neylan, Mr.
Hearst’s attorney in the San Francisco strike in 1934, Edward
L. Ryerson, Jr., of Chicago, Seward Prosser, Pliilip G. Rust of
Wilmington, Delaware.
In the 1936 campaign, political expenditures, including
donations to the Liberty League and its subsidiaries, one of
which, the Sentinels of the Republic, was anti Semitic, in¬
cluded:
Ir^n^e, Henry and Pierre S. duPont.$144,000
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and family. 103,000
George F. Baker, the banker. 55,000
J. Howard Pew (oil and shipbuilding). 61,000
J. P. Morgan . 50,000
Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. 50,000
Ernest T. Weir. 47,300
William Randolph Hearst. 40,000
Andrew and Richard Mellon . 40,000
Donaldson Brown, duPonts, General Motors. 31,000
(Senator Black’s Lobbying Investigation published the corre¬
spondence of Sentinels’ officials calling for a Hitler in America,
denouncing the Jews, especially those who aided the New Deal.)
Among the largest contributors ta the Roosevelt fund in
the same election were: Mrs. Doris Duke Cromwell, $50,000;
Walter A. Jones of Pittsburgh, $40,000; Clifton H. Scott of
Little Rock, $32,500; Curtis Bok, of the publishing family,
$25,000; James W. Gerard, ex-ambassador to Germany,
$15,000.
One of history’s strangest ironies will be the two facts that
the largest campaign slush fund to date was raised in 1940 by
the same people who in 1944 prevented the same party stand¬
ard bearer (Willkie) from even attending the convention.
Senator Gillette was howled down in the Senate when he
said that the funds for both sides in 1940 might go to twenty
182
1000 AMERICANS
million, but he himself announced an official figure of
$16,476,039 for Willkie. It was actually eighteen million. The
main individual money backers were the duPonts ($68,350'),
the Pews ($91,025) and the Rockefellers ($30,500). These are
the official figures which do not include gifts to other organiza¬
tions, state organizations, or loans. The Democrats officially
received $6,284,463.
But experts for the Campaign Expenditures Committee
“estimated that a total of $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 was
spent.” Said Senator Gillette, head of the investigation:
“While there have probably been irregularities, frauds, viola¬
tions, and abuses in all elections of the past, I believe that I do not
exaggerate when I say that never before in American history have
we seen a more patent, potent and potential attempt to influence
the American electorate through the expenditure of huge sums of
money than in the campaign that has just closed.” (Source: Na¬
tional Radio Forum, NBC, December 2, 1940.)
In the 1940 campaign, as in previous and more recent
campaigns, the money which caused this “debauchery” was
between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 Republican Party money. In the
past it was sometimes overwhelming enough to corrupt
enough people to elect candidates, sometimes it failed because
there were sufficient votes which could not be influenced by
the expenditure of money.
The law which prohibited corporations from making con¬
tributions was proved a failure. Congressman Chet Holifield
of California told Congress about it years later. The corporate
interests evaded and circumvented the law “in two principal
ways”:
“First, by the formation of an independent unincorporated
association to 'front' for the corporation interests; and
“Second, by personal contributions from corporation execu¬
tives and members of their families.”
Holifield then gave these 1940 figures:
The duPont family, grand total.$186,780.00
The Pitcairn family, grand total. 29,114.71
The Alfred P. Sloan family, grand total . 36,000.00
The Queeny family, grand total. 42,375.00
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS? 183
The Pew family, grand total . 108,525.00
The Rockefeller family, grand total. 59,000.00
—(Congressional Record, June 21, 1944, page 6480)
In 1944 the National Citizens’ Political Action Committee
estimated that in ten years the Pew family alone had poured
thirteen million dollars into political funds. It stated:
“The Pews of Pennsylvania stand high among the people who
would form Dewey’s ‘kitchen cabinet’ if he were elected. Listen
to Joe Pew, only two months before Pearl Harbor:
“ ‘When democracy goes on the march it marches on a road
that leads through chaos and revolution and totalitarianism. It we
follow that road to its bitter end, we will find ourselves defeated,
no matter how brilliant have been our victories on the battlefield.'
“To stop the march of democracy, Joe and the rest of the Pew
clan have poured an estimated $13,000,000 into Republican coffers
since 1934. They have never fully cashed in on this colossal in¬
vestment in the cause of reaction, but they are pinning their hopes
on Tom Dewey. The Pews have contributed heavily to (1) Frank
Gannett’s Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government,
branded as an extremely isolationist and anti-Roosevelt outfit; (2)
The Sentinels of the Republic, anti-Semitic enemy of child labor
laws, maternity benefits and unemployment insurance; (3) the
Crusaders, whose roster included Sewell Avery and R. Douglas
Stewart, father of the founder of America First.
“We wind up with a quotation from Lammot duPont of Dela¬
ware, a great pillar of the Dewey cause in the East. Speaking before
the NAM in 1942 duPont said:
“ ‘We will win the war by reducing taxes on corporations, high
income brackets and increasing taxes on lower incomes, by remov¬
ing unions from any power to tell industry how to produce ... by
destroying any and all government agencies that stand in the way
of free enterprise.'" (NCPAC News-letter, October 4, 1944.)
The very same corporation heads who put up the major
portion of the national campaign funds have of late also inter¬
vened in state affairs.
In June, 1942, In Fact received a letter from the Demo¬
cratic State Committee of South Dakota saying that it had
obtained from the State capital the list of donations for the
Republican organization, indicating that “eastern capitalists'*
had contributed practically all of the $51,700 fund, an enor¬
mous and overwhelming amount of money for a state with so
184
1000 AMERICANS
few electors. The amazing and even amusing part of the letter
was a request for information about the donors. It was evident
that South Dakota did not know who these men and women
are. In Fact sent on the information, published the list of
contributors, supplied the information later used by Senator
Guffey, the columnists Lowell Mellett and Drew Pearson, and
many others.
The facts are significant because the fund was so large
that money remained for the 1944 and 1946 elections. Thus it
can be stated that all of South Dakota’s men in Congress were
elected with the aid of a huge fund raised almost exclusively
from leading members and directors of the National Associa¬
tion of Manufacturers, and their friends. South Dakota’s men
in Congress are:
Senator Chan Gurney, Republican, Yankton, term to 1951.
Senator Harlan J. Bushfield, Republican, Miller, S.D.,
1949.
Representative Karl E. Mundt, Republican, of Madison.
Representative Francis Case, Republican, of Custer.
Bushfield got a direct contribution of $2,000 from the Pew
family, making the South Dakota fund $53,700. The Demo¬
crats raised a total of $12,838 from 800 contributors, wound
up with a deficit of $183. The Republicans in 1944 still had
$17,000 for their campaign.
The few powerful men who supplied the money which
helped elect South Dakota’s men in Congress, and the sums
each contributed, follow:
Lammot duPont, $4,000; Ir^n^e duPont, $2,500; Donaldson
Brown, vice-President of General Motors, $2,000.
The DuPont Empire is worth more than two billion
dollars. The duPont family itself owns $573,690,000 worth of
stock in its own corporations, and in United States Rubber.
(TNEC Monograph 29, page 116.) Members of the duPont
family, their trusts, estates, and corporations, own 20.31% of
General Motors, one of the billionaire corporations, 2.18%,
of Phillips Petroleum Company, 11.51% of United States Rub-
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS?
185
her and fractions of one per cent in American Sugar Refining,
Mid-Continent Pete, and United Fruit (Monograph 29, page
119). The control of General Motors is absolute.
Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., $2,500.
Mr. Sloan is a director of General Motors, also a director
of the National Association of Manufacturers. His chief activity
at the NAM is chairman of the National Industrial Informa¬
tion Committee, the propaganda agency which has been spend¬
ing between three and five million dollars a year, influencing
the press, radio, schools, movies, churches, agricultural organ¬
izations and others in favor of the big business system. Mr.
Sloan’s name appeared as a donor of sums to reactionary affili¬
ates of the Liberty League when Senator Black conducted his
investigation.
Sarah Mellon Scaife, $4,000; Ailsa Mellon Bruce, $5,000; L. W.
Mesta, $1,000.
The Mellon family is the fourth richest in the country,
according to Monograph 29, owning $390,943,000 worth of
stock in its Gulf Oil, Aluminum Company, and Koppcis
United. Mrs. Scaife is the daughter of Richard Mellon, noted
for his remark, “You can’t run a coal mine without machine-
guns.’’ Mesta Machine Company, a Mellon firm, was a great
profiteer in the First World War.
Mary Ethel Pew, $1,000; Earle Haliburton of Duncan, Okla¬
homa, $5,000; Joseph Pew, Jr., $1,000; Mabel Pew Myrin,
$ 1 , 000 .
The Pews, ninth richest family, own $75,628,000 in Sun
Oil stock. They also own the news magazine Pathfinder and
the Farm Journal, The Pews are among the dozen most active
heads of the National Association of Manufacturers, they boss
Pennsylvania politics, and they contribute to the Sentinels of
the Republic, anti-Semitic branch of the old Liberty League.
Colonel R. R. McCormick of the Chicago Tribune, $5,000;
Colonel Ira C. Copley, Aurora, Illinois, $5,000.
When Colonel Copley bought the San Diego Evening
186
1000 AMERICANS
Tribune he announced on page one: have no connection
with any public utility anywhere and no connections with
any other business than the newspaper business anywhere.’* At
the hearings into the corrupt practices of the light and power
corporations, Judge Healy of the Federal Trade Commission
obtained the following confession from Copley’s attorney, B. P.
Alschuler: “In January 1928 . . . Copley exchanged preferred
and common stock previously held by him for preferred stock
of Western United Gas 8c Electric Corporation. . . , Coplev
is owner also of $1,000,000 in bonds of WUGE.” Evidence was
presented that Copley owned $2,400,000 in utility stocks. He
also owned or owns: Aurora Beacon, Elgin Courier, Joliet
Herald-News, Illinois State Journal, San Diego Independent,
Glendale Press, Pasadena Evening Post, Hollywood News,
Santa Monica Outlook, Venice Vanguard, Culver City Star
News, Redondo Daily Breeze, San Pedro Daily News. This
expose by the Federal Trade Commission was one of its most
sensational, proving to the American public that public utility
men own numerous newspapers, all of which print anti-public
ownership propaganda.
Other large contributors were: Catherine Barker Hicox,
Chicago, $1,000; Ralph D. Mershon of New York, $1,000; Earl
LaGrave of Chicago, $2,700.
A total of $31,000, or the major portion of the $53,700
South Dakota fund, came from the leading families in control
of the National Association of Manufacturers. All the rest of
it came from persons whose financial, economic and social
interests were that of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers. It would be an excellent idea, therefore, for one of
our great institutions of learning not in any way indebted to
any member, living or dead, of the very same organization, to
make a scientific study of the policy line as laid down by the
peak association of big business, and the voting record of the
four men from South Dakota. Perhaps some bright young man
or woman will make this the subject for his or her thesis for a
master’s degree.
Meanwhile, let us look at the record.
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS?
187
This is not an easy thing to do. The press is deep in the
game of politics, it is partisan, and therefore not honest enough
to present to its readers, come election time, a truthful diagram
of a candidate’s past two or four years of voting, the issues
involved, and whether or not the vote was for the voter’s
benefit or for the benefit of the few gentlemen who put up the
money. The New York Times and the New York Herald
Tribune, for example, do not publish these charts, whereas
almost every liberal and labor publication in America does so.
In 1944 the Labor Institute of America issued a huge
lithographed four-colored sheet entitled “The Black Record of
Congress.’* It chose, quite rightly, ten controversial issues, each
one affecting the general welfare, since these and only these
issues can be made the test of a candidate’s honesty and integ¬
rity. There was, for example, the Smith-Connally Bill, allegedly
designed to avoid strikes, but actually one of the most impor¬
tant measures proposed to destroy the labor movement. Addi¬
tionally, it prohibited the contribution to political campaigns
by labor unions, thus preventing campaign funds from the
masses of people to counteract the millions contributed by
members of the NAM and other employer groups.
The President proposed a salary limit of $67,200. The
press, almost without exception, referred to it as the $25,000
limitation bill, inasmuch as this sum was the net after paying
taxes. There was also the usual inadequate income tax bill
placing the burden disproportionately on those with moderate
income and ignoring, as usual, ability to pay. There was also
one of the several Fair Employment Practices Committee bills
aimed to establish a government agency to prevent discrimina¬
tion because of race, color or creed, and one of the many anti¬
poll tax bills.
There was never any doubt in all these bills as to where
the Wall Street corporations, the native Fascist organizations,
the brasscheck journalists and radio commentators, and all the
forces of reaction stood; nor was there ever any doubt as to
where Liberals and Democrats and all who have the welfare of
America at heart stood on most of these measures.
188
1000 AMERICANS
The four men from South Dakota voted on all but one
or two of the ten bills in accordance with positions first taken
by the National Association of Manufacturers’ News, the Wall
Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and like-minded groups.
Gurney and Bushfield voted for the Smith-Connally Bill,
against the $25,000 limitation, for the National Association of
Manufacturers’ income tax bill; they were also absent when
votes were taken on other important measures.
Case and Mundt voted for the '‘labor-shackling” Hobbs
Bill; Case voted for the Smith-Connally Bill and Mundt was
absent; both voted for two NAM sponsored income tax bills
which passed the House and both voted against the bill which
would have rolled back prices and stopped the rise in the cost
of living at a time labor kept its promise not to strike for
higher wages. The record of these two men was listed by the
New Republic and other liberal publications as among the
“worst” made in Congress. Only two votes stand to their
credit: They voted for the salary limitation and for the aboli¬
tion of the poll tax, the latter requiring no bravery or integrity
for representatives of a state which has no poll tax problem.
In all the charts from 1942 to 1946 the same percentage
exists: one or two plus signs against a dozen minus signs. The
New Republic chart for 1946, for example, has only one plus
sign for each senator. Both get minus signs (or a zero for being
absent) on the full em[)loyment bill (which the National Asso¬
ciation of Manufacturers opposed), the confirmation of Aubrey
Williams, the price control Bill, the Wallace confirmation, the
reciprocal trade agreements, the return of USES to the states,
the extension of presidential war powers for another six
months.
Both Representatives Mundt and Case get a credit for vot¬
ing against the poll tax again, and on one minor matter, farm
labor deferment. Case got a plus and Mundt a minus, but
otherwise this pair voted the NAM line on all other measures,
notably: reciprocal trade, Hobbs Bill, Wallace and Full Em¬
ployment, and the two price control measures.
Mundt, the New Republic reported in its voting chart
WHO BUYS THE ELECTIONS?
189
supplement of May 18, 1942, “has been extremely active as an
America First speaker, appearing on eastern platforms with
Ham Fish and others, as well as in his native Middle West. He
was used especially as a speaker for rallies in German-Amer-
ican communities; his pro-fascist tendencies have been quite
clearly indicated in these public addresses.” Congressman Fish
was one of the fifteen Americans who signed the main Hitler
propaganda book which the Nazi agent, George Sylvester Vie-
reck, circulated in the United States. Mundt was endorsed by
the Nazi Bund throughout America. Later he became a mem¬
ber of the Thomas-Rankin Un-American Committee.
Case, author of the vicious anti-labor bill which bore his
name and which was pushed by the NAM and other big busi¬
ness groups, is one of the most hated members of Congress.
President Truman’s veto of this bill paved the way for the even
more vicious Taft-Hartley Slave Labor Bill.
If Fascism ever comes to America as it came to Italy and
Germany (after years of reactionary anti-labor legislation en¬
acted by legislators who favored corporate and property rights
over human rights), the verdict of history might well be that
these four were, in the words of Mussolini “among Fascists of
the first hour.”
The record of the four men from South Dakota is one of
the blackest in the history of American reaction. The fact that
they sponsored and voted for the proposals for legislation
appearing in the propaganda output of the National Associa¬
tion of Manufacturers is unchallengeable. The fact that the
campaign fund which got them into Congress was raised largely
by National Association of Manufacturers’ members may be
put down as a coincidence by those who believe that the world
of politics and big business still runs in a coincidental free
enterprise manner. Others may believe that coincidences like
those arise out of community of interest and not by mere
accident.
(Documentation on South Dakota election money: Con¬
gressional Record, address by Senator Guffey, March 8, 1945;
I.owell Mellett’s syndicated column, March 15, 1945; Drew
190
1000 AMERICANS
Pearson’s syndicated “Washington-Merry-Go-Round,” March
2, 1945; In Fact, December 28, 1942, and February 18, 1946; St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, June 12, 1943.)
The whole subject of money in elections requires an hon¬
est congressional investigation. The pamphlet publication,
“Economic Affairs,” of the Institute of Economic Affairs, New
York University, suspended at the end of its fourth volume for
some unstated reason. In its time it published factual data of
great value. Its August-September, 1946, issue was devoted al¬
most entirely to answering its own front-page question: “Does
Money Win Elections?” Part of the answer is given by a chart.
“The chart covers the Presidential elections from 1896 to
1936, the last election before the Hatch Act limited the spend¬
ing by individual committees to $3,000,000 in any one calen¬
dar year,” the text explains, noting also the Democratic Party
claim that ten or fifteen millions was raised by Mark Hanna,
used to elect McKinley, and not officially listed. The report by
Dr. Harold W. Davey continues:
“Since 1900, there has been far less difference in the amounts
of election money spent by the two parties.* Yet with only two
exceptions, the party whose national committee spent the most
money won every time. The first exception was the 1912 election
of Wilson when Theodore Roosevelt split the Republican vote.
The other was the landslide defeat of Landon by Franklin D.
Roosevelt in 1936.”
The only study of the power of campaign funds is Pro¬
fessor Louise Overacker’s “Money in Elections” and her more
recent little volume “Presidential Campaign Funds.” ”In the
major parties,” she concludes, “the size of the campaign funds
is less significant than the sources from which they draw their
support.
“The pattern of financial support in presidential elections
• The “big money” in the Demociatic Party grows less with each election.
Woodrow Wilson had among his suppoiters such multi-millionaires as William
C. Whitney, Thomas Fortune Ryan, and Bernard M. Baruch. In 1921 “J. P.
Morgan had to choose between Calvin Coolidge and his firm’s lawyer, John W.
Davis. He chose Coolidge,” reported the New York Daily Neivs, November 8,
1936. Notable contributors to the FDR campaigns included S. Parker Gilbert, a
Morgan partner, A. P. Giannini, Basil Harris, Walter P. Chrysler, Fred Fisher
of Fisher Bodies, and some officers of the National City Bank.
WHO BUYS THE ELEClIONS?
191
is a highly significant index of who pulls the strings within
the parties, and reflects the pattern of the economic structure
and the pyramiding power within the structure.
‘‘In a democracy it is highly important that the voters be
fully informed on all these points.**
They are not.
PART FOUR
BIG REACTION
CHAPTER 15
BIG MONEY MEN
The few, certainly less than a thousand, who boast they can
buy the presidency and who actually put up a large proportion
of the campaign funds raised for state and national elections,
are big industrialists, big bankers, big newspaper owners, big
magazine men, big powers in Wall Street—in short they are
the Big Money. Whether or not they buy the presidency, or
for a majority of terms control the White House, may be open
to question; but no one can question the fact that these same
few and their organizations share political, social and economic
viewpoints which range between two terms, reaction and
Fascism.
As for the use of these words, it is significant that on the
very day in which they were written here, Mr. Henry A.
Wallace in a public speech declared that “the United States
has become the center of world reaction,*' and Mr. Philip
Murray, continuing his campaign against the Taft-Hartley
(“slave labor”) bill, declared that it was “the first step towards
Fascism in America.” The terms are being used by Amer¬
ican leaders of men—and still being attacked by frightened
semanticists.
In this and the following chapter it will be seen that
although many names change, and organizations disappear and
are replaced, the individuals and the associations which sub¬
sidize or which are subsidized by reaction represent the same
group, or family, or social stratum. Plus ca change, plus c'est la
193
194
1000 AMERICANS
meme chose. It is always reaction which acts, which hands out
money, which organizes, which propagandizes on a vast scale,
and which commands the attention and favor of the means of
communication. The forces of reaction in America are similar
to those which acted in exactly the same way before they took
the final step, and by arming themselves introduced fascism to
the world.
It so happens that the most prominent of the corporation-
inspired reactionary organizations which sprang up imme¬
diately after the end of the second World War called them¬
selves Tool Owners Union and American Action Inc., but they
resembled the old old Liberty League and the National Se¬
curity League of the days of the first World War just as three
generations of a family resemble each other.
The National Association of Manufacturers, which re¬
cently celebrated its fiftieth birthday, has a continuous history
of opposition to the labor movement. It is the symbol of reac¬
tion, the spokesman of reaction, the spearhead of reaction.
This is a legitimate function.
But many ask: what is the relationship between reaction
and Fascism?
Recent history supplies the answer. In Italy, for example,
the Associazione fra Industriale Generale delf Industria func¬
tioned for many years in much the same way the NAM func¬
tions in the United States today. So did the Associazione fra
Industriali Metallurgici Meccanici ed Affini, the equivalent of
the Iron and Steel Institute. Italy also had its equivalent of
the United States Chamber of Commerce, and all these organi¬
zations, antedating Mussolini, used their powers and their pres¬
sures for their own profit and collaborated with the parties
whose unwritten but most important campaign promise was the
perpetuation of reaction.
In Germany the Stahlverein, or union of steel makers, the
association of Ruhr industrialists, and other organizations
similar to the NAM and United States Chamber of Commerce
functioned as reactionary forces long before Hitler was known
as anybody but a labor spy and stoolpigeon.
big money men
195
In Italy, in Germany and in the United States for half a
century or more, the leaders of business, industry and banking
have formed associations or subsidized organizations devoted
to the maintenance of the status quo, the protection of their
wealth and power, the policy of reaction. All this has been
within the law.
When reaction resorts to bayonets the result is Fascism.
This is what happened in Germany and Italy, in Spain
and in other countries. So far, it has not happened in the
United States. The reactionary forces of America are the most
powerful in the land, but they have not yet attempted to buy
bayonets, to take over private armed forces, to seize and run
the government for their own benefit.
So it may be said that throughout the century the same
big money and big business forces in America have subsidized
a score, perhaps a hundred, more or less powerful organizations,
they have been subsidizing reaction, but not Fascism; and that
if a day arrives when the reactionary forces resort to arms,
then it can be said that the pattern of Italy and Germany has
been followed, and reaction has been turned into Fascism.
If history repeats itself here, reaction will choose for its
spearhead an organization of veterans, just as the Italian asso¬
ciation of manufacturers and chamber of commerce chose the
Fascio di Combattimento, of which, incidentally, Mussolini was
not a founding member, and the German industrialists chose
the Nazis, of which Hitler himself was not a founder.
The American Legion, of course, is a “natural” for Fascist
action, and its true history—^which is never mentioned in the
newspapers or popular magazines—shows that more than one
attempt has already been made in that direction. When Alvin
Owsley was Legion commander he was prepared to seize Wash¬
ington. “The Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion
is to the United States,” he said in 1922 and confirmed his state¬
ments in a letter to the present writer many years later. Several
Legion conventions invited Mussolini, honored him, sent him
medals. And high ranking Legion officials, including one of its
founders, actually plotted to seize the government and prevent
196 1000 AMERICANS
Franklin D. Roosevelt from exercising his duties as President.
(See Appendix 21.)
I do not intend in this volume to do more than mention
organizations such as The Columbians and the Khaki Shirts
of America, which actually wore uniforms, or the scores of
small and perhaps totally unimportant outfits, some of them
run by crackpots, to which John Roy Carlson has devoted two
books.
If history is a guide, it is clear that Fascist organizations
of this type become nationally dangerous only when the most
powerful and the richest forces of the nation subsidize them.
If ever the day arrives when the same men and organiza¬
tions now functioning legitimately in the United States for the
spread of reaction, invest their millions in a self-admitted dema¬
gogue such as Gerald L. K. Smith, or one of the Senators he
has endorsed; if ever the great Hearst-Howard-McCormick-
Patterson-Gannett axis unites behind one of these leaders, thus
forming an alliance of money, press, public opinion, dema¬
goguery and bayonets, then we can expect Fascism to replace
reaction in the United States.
It is for this reason that the danger today is not in the
so-called “vermin Fascism’' which has been attacked and ex¬
posed in many books, notably Carlson’s, and by many members
of Congress, and by a score of liberal organizations, but in the
respectable potential Fascism of the most powerful reactionary
interests which may at some future time, when even the New
Deal is surpassed, decide to place their millions on the bayonets
of black or brown shirts, rather than accept the decisions of
the ballot boxes.
Respectable Fascism, respectable because of name, power
and money, is protected by almost everyone, and particularly
by the press and radio. Something like a conspiracy of silence
actually exists.
Let me illustrate: On April 16, 1945,1 sent several liberals
in both Houses of Congress copies of my issue of In Fact of
that date, publishing the text of the War Department’s Army
Talk, Orientation Fact Sheet 64, entitled “Fascism.” The dean
BIG MONEY MEN
197
of the House of Representatives, Adolph Sabath, placed it in
the Congressional Record of the 19th, appending to the text the
following statement;
“Mr. Speaker, I only regret that the rules and regulations
of the War Department precluded the naming of outstanding
American Fascists, such as the duPonts, the Pews, the Girdlers,
the Weirs, Van Horn Moseley, H. W. Prentis, Jr., Merwin K.
Hart and others, including the 30 Fascists charged with con¬
spiracy and seditious activities and tried, but due to the un¬
timely death of the trial judge, still at large.*’ (Only the Pews
protested; they wrote the Congressman it was “a detestable
lie” and “scandalous and libelous.” It would indeed be a de¬
testable lie, scandalous and libelous, if the record of the Lobby¬
ing Investigation, conducted by Senator (now Supreme Court
Justice) Black, did not show that the Pews helped finance the
Sentinels of the Republic whose anti-Semitic correspondence
was made public, and the Crusaders, both affiliates of the re¬
spectable Liberty League, denounced in the Senate as run by
“leeches, rascals, crooks.”
The American press (with notable exceptions of the Chris¬
tian Science Monitor, St, Louis Post-Dispatch and a few other
honest newspapers) suppressed all mention of Army Talk 64
and suppressed the list of names which Sabath appended, and
which incidentally were privileged, or libel-proof, whether or
not they were correct and truthful.
Later, a tragic footnote to the story was supplied by Henry
Hoke in his book “It’s A Secret.” As a result of my sending
the official statement on Fascism to Congressmen, and the use
made of it by Mr. Sabath, two Congressmen in the service of
reaction, John Rankin of Mississippi and Clare Hoffman of
Michigan, demanded that the Army drop its work of teaching
the soldiers who and what the enemy was. Investigators got
busy, members of the Intelligence Section of the Army were
transferred or dismissed, personnel was frightened, and the
word went out to tone down on Fascism because “Burton”
would make trouble for them.
Hoke discloses the fact that H. Ralph Burton, counsel of
198
1000 AMERICANS
the House Military Affairs Committee, took up the request
of Rankin and Hoffman, and wrecked the entire Army orienta¬
tion course. He describes Burton as a thorough reactionary,
a one-time attorney for William Ludecke, who had boasted he
was No. 2 Nazi in America; an intimate of Walter S. Steele,
who was permitted to use the Dies Committee as a forum; and
general counsel in Maryland for Father Coughlin’s National
Union of Social Justice. Rankin, Hoffman and Burton were
opposed to knowledge of tlie truth about Fascism being spread
in the United States despite the fact 15,000,000 men and women
had been called to arms to fight the world’s greatest menace.
These three changed the whole policy of the Army.
Not a word on this subject appeared in the public prints.
Nor did the press (with the notable exception of the Nezv
York Times, which, however, ran the item on its real estate
page) pay any attention whatever to the convention of the
National Maritime Union on July 7, 1943, at a time the mass
of the American Army was not engaged in either the East or
the West, and the maritime workers had a list of 4,000 dead
and 12,000 torpedoed, a record of casualties proportionately
higher than in any branch of the regular forces. The fact that
the Times a column to the news of the NMU passing a
resolution naming the leading home-grown fascists as America’s
greatest enemies, makes the silence on the part of its colleagues
all the more impressive; after all the Times knows what is
news and what isn’t—both when it publishes and when it
fails to do so. Said the resolution in part:
“Hitler’s agents have found their way into high places in our
national life—Big Business, Congress, press, radio. They are work¬
ing frantically to confuse and divide the people, throw the nation
into chaos and halt production. Anti-Semitism, red-baiting, union-
busting and anti-Negro provocations are the methods through
which they attempt to pit labor against capital, the farmer against
labor, one national group against the other. . . .
“We reaffirm our wholehearted and unreserved support of our
Commander-in-Chief and his victory policies. . . .
“We call upon our Commander-in-Chief to . . . investigate and
prosecute those enemies of our national welfare represented by the
National Association of Manufacturers in big business: (Senators)
BIG MONEY MEN
199
Wheeler, Nye, Connally; (Representatives) Dies, Fish, (Howard)
Smith in Congress; Hearst, Patterson, McCormick and Howard in
the press; Gerald L. K. Smith, Father Coughlin and all elements
in the Christian Front and Ku Klux Klan."
It might have been the mention of the four press lords
which persuaded their more liberal, less powerful colleagues
to suppress the news entirely, or it might have been the men¬
tion of the NAM, the still most sacred, most golden of all
calves. At any rate, except for the TimeSy it was not news.
A third illustration was furnished by Attorney General
Robert H. Jackson on the occasion of his address to the Massa¬
chusetts Law Society, when again an expose of powerful native
fascists was suppressed.
In 1927, five years after Mussolini was in office, and the
very year Thyssen called on all German Big Business to sub¬
sidize Hitler, some of the protofascist American organizations
were exposed by Norman Hapgood in the book “Professional
Patriots” (published by A. & C. Boni). “A few,” he said of
them, “are honest in the sense they are composed of persons
who are now trying to make the world safe for money under
the pretense of making it safe from disorder.” That very neatly
summed them up, and sums up their successors—but not all
of them have disappeared. Some of the worst remain, and
Hapgood’s book is a fine reference work today.
“Most of the organizations, especially the smaller ones,” he
continues, “are backed ... by promoters who play on the fears
of the property class in general, or the fears of some single wealthy
old gentleman who is kept awake at night by Bolshevism, or on
the fears of army officers that the world they are brought up to
believe in is threatened by radical meetings, especially if those
meetings are held in parlors. . . .
“They seek to instil the idea that what is meant by patriotism
is devotion to business privilege and to the open shop; that law,
private violence and officials should put down what under this
definition is unpatriotic; that the only approach to our large new
industrial questions, being thrashed out between capital and labor,
is suppression of one side of the argument.”
The list of two decades ago is very interesting. It includes:
Allied Patriotic Societies, American Constitutional Asso-
200
1000 AMERICANS
ciation, American Citizenship Foundation, American Defense
Society, Better America Federation, Civil Legion, Military In¬
telligence Association, Military Order of the World War, Na¬
tional Security League, National Civic Federation, National
Patriotic Council, National Association for Constitutional
Government, National Clay Products Association, Constitu¬
tional Anniversary Association, Sentinels of the Republic,
United States Patriotic Society, United States Flag Asso¬
ciation, the Women Builders of America, and several minor
organizations.
Summing them up, Mr. Hapgood said:
“From the most excusable to the most mercenary they vary
in the shade of their morals and their intelligence. What puts them
all into the same discussion is that they all participate in the at¬
tempt to make of a noble word and emotion the handmaid of
greed and cowardice. . . .
“The outstanding fact is that this persistent propaganda to
degrade the name of patriotism to the service of the dollar has
its most important support among those who make money out of
war and of holding down standards of labor.“
Today those societies which are alive have not changed
their policy, and those which have sprung to life have offered
little or no change, except that in the interval more people
have grown more enlightened, and see through patriotic hy¬
pocrisy of false Americanism and recognize both the subsidiz¬
ers and their purposes.
One of the first to be exposed was the National Security
League, direct ancestor of the American Liberty League, of a
decade ago and the present American Action, Inc., of today.
The NSL wanted to save America s soul. Its prospectus read:
“Help save America! America is in danger of losing her soul.
The National Security League offers you the means of putting
forth your individual force to help save it. Will you do this by
giving us. . (and here a sum was suggested.)
This was not part of the crackpottery of the preachers
of the lunatic fringe of the present-day Fascist movement, nor
was it the demagoguery of the kind Huey Long and Gerald
L. K. Smith and the Rev. Dr. Frank Buchman and the Rev.
BIG MONEY MEN
201
Father Coughlin and the Rev. James W. Fifield and many other
reverend spokesmen of reaction now offer. This was big busi¬
ness selling itself via a religious appeal.
Fortunately, however, the National Security League made
a faux pas one day in 1919, after years of successful big arma^
ments propaganda and big war propaganda; it sneered at cer¬
tain members of Congress and the latter ordered an investiga¬
tion, which soon disclosed that the real backers, the patriots
of the National Security League, were certain persons later to
be known as “merchants of death,” who mingled patriotism
with profit. Notable were:
Nicholas F. Brady, representing the power and light in¬
terests; T. Coleman duPont, whose relatives today subsidize a
dozen similar organizations; Henry Clay Frick, errand boy for
the Mellon interests, lawyer for armament makers; George W,
Perkins of the House of Morgan; Simon and Daniel Guggen¬
heim, of the American Smelting Company, the copper kings;
J. Pierpont Morgan himself, the leader of the Wall Street
bankers who, according to the findings of the Nye-Vandenberg
Committee, directed the drift of the United States into the First
World War; and the senior John D. Rockefeller.
The Congressional committee decided that these were
patriots for war profits; it stated that “if the curtain were only
pulled back, in addition to the interests heretofore enu¬
merated, the hands of Rockefeller, of Vanderbilt, of Morgan,,
of Remington, of duPont, and of Guggenheim, would be seen,
suggesting steel, oil, moneybags, Russian bonds (Tsarist bonds,
which were defaulted, causing years of plotting against Russia),
rifles, powder and railroads.” (House of Representatives, Re¬
port No. 1173; Investigation of National Security League.)
That was in 1919. Immediately after this expose the Na¬
tional Security League sought to regain confidence—^and new
funds—by directing its propaganda against liberals, radicals*
pacifists, and communists.
In 1936, when the Spanish Republic was fighting for its
life, Hearst paid National Security League President, Lt. Gen¬
eral Robert Lee Bullard, former commander of Pershing’s
202
1000 AMERICANS
Second Army, for a red-baiting attack on the Loyalists. In 1938
(see “You Can't Do That”) the NCL, Bullard and Hearst were
still engaged in their red-baiting campaigns.
The American Liberty League, which reached its apogee
at about the time the National Security League was in its nadir,
actually had among its affiliates two which were openly fascistic,
one of them anti-Semitic, and all of them valiantly and patriot¬
ically striving to destroy the labor union movement and safe¬
guard the profit of the men who organized and directed the
parent society. The anti-Semitic feature may have been inci¬
dental, but it was a warning of a wave of the future. The
Lobbying Investigation brought to light letters exchanged by
the Boston investment banker, Alexander Lincoln, and one
W. Cleveland Runyon of Plainfield, N. J., which accused Roose¬
velt of bringing “the Jewish brigade” to Washington, declared
the “New Deal is communist,” and suggested that “the old line
Americans of $1200 a year want a Hitler.”
These Sentinels of the Republic, according to the Lobby
Investigation, were financed chiefly by the Pitcairn family of
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, J. Howard Pew, A. Atwater Kent
and Nicholas Roosevelt of the New York Herald Tribune, The
Sentinels supplied etlitorials to more than 1300 papers urging
“a return to American principles.”
More overtly fascist was the Liberty League affiliate known
as the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, of
which even the conservative Baltimore Sun said: “This is a
hybrid organization financed by northern money, but playing
on the Ku Klux Klan prejudices of the South. When Raskob,
a Roman Catholic, contributed $5000, he was told that his
money would be used to stir up the KKK and also to finance
a venomous attack upon Mrs. Roosevelt.” Part of the Raskob
donation was used to print a paper showing Mrs. Roosevelt
with two Negroes.
Vance Muse was manager of the Southern Committee.
Its sponsor was John H. Kirby, Its purpose was to back Tal-
madge. Kirby was also one of the chief sponsors for America’s
first Hitlerite or Nuernberg-style convention of anti-Semites
BIG MONEY MEN
203
secretly organized by Major A. Cloyd Gill of the Hearst news¬
paper editorial staff, and held in Asheville, N. C., in 1936.
Under oath. Muse admitted to Senator Black that “the guiding
spirits” of the Macon “grass roots” convention to enlist south¬
erners against the New Deal were Governor Talmadge, Mr.
Kirby, and the Rev. Gerald L. K. Smith, one of the most no¬
torious spreaders of anti-Semitism in the nation.
Said the Nexu York Post (April 18, 1936): “The brood of
anti-New Deal organizations spawned by the Liberty League
are in turn spawning Fascism.” It was one of the few news¬
papers which recognized, even before the Spanish uprising,
what Fascism really meant. But in May, 1937, Pierre S. duPont,
challenged on the subject, declared that he would withdraw
his support if he found “one trace” of race-hate propaganda.
“I have never entertained any prejudices that would mark me
with disfavor to any race or people,” declared Mr. duPont; “I
have one-eighth Jewish blood in my veins that I am not
ashamed of.” But Mr. duPont did not withdraw.
If there was any doubt about what reaction or native
Fascism means by “American principles,” a spokesman for the
Sentinels has cleared it up brilliantly. W. A. Wilson, member
of the faculty of Yale University, proposed that the Constitu¬
tion be amended. By striking out one phrase, he said, the
American ideal would be achieved. Wilson wrote: “My own
proposal would be to strike out the general-welfare clause in
Article I, Section 8.” Editor and economist George Soule of
the New Republic pointed out that although the Sentinel
amendment would prevent the government from serving the
best interests of all the people, “it would hardly be necessary,
since a majority of the Supreme Court has already narrowly
restricted the meaning of the existing welfare clause.”
The Wilson proposal had at least the virtue of honesty.
The sincerity of the parent organization, the American Liberty
League, was challenged when its offer to defend the civil liber¬
ties of any victim was accepted by the American Civil Liberties
Union. It offered six immediate cases, involving the rights of
Negroes, unions, a religious minority, the right of free speech
204
1000 AMERICANS
and of assembly. The Liberty League’s National Lawyers' Com¬
mittee referred the matter to its chairman, Raoul E. Desver-
nine, who refused to help. Mr. Desvernine later became presi¬
dent of the Crucible Steel Company. This leading light of
liberty shone again in 1947 when his name appeared as one of
the big money men among the "Board of Founders" of the
Tool Owners Union which was denied a charter of incorpora¬
tion by New York State on the ground that it was Fascist.
In its own bulletin to members (September 15, 1936), the
Liberty League denounced the New Deal and President Roose¬
velt for stating that "for many years a free people were being
gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few."
It denounced the President for using the term "unscrupulous
money changers" and was especially bitter over the famous
phrases "the privileged princes of these new economic dynas¬
ties" and the "economic royalists." Over all its protests the
League wrote the headline: "Fomenting Class Hatred."
But the Liberty League propaganda failed because of its
timing. Although the New Deal was being attacked, and fre¬
quently lied about, by the business interests and by the ma¬
jority of the press, times were hard and the benefits of the
Roosevelt program were visible to millions of people. In those
days the most poweiful of all newspaper chains, Roy Howard’s,
and his wire service the United Press, and several other of his
suppliers of news, were still on the liberal side; they had not
licked the shoepolish of the moneyed interests as Hearst had
before them; and their expose of the dollar motive behind the
Liberty League did much to destroy it. One of the United
Press’ headlines read "Liberty League Controlled by Owners
of $37,000,000,000." It listed notably United States Steel, Gen¬
eral Motors, Standard Oil, Chase National Bank, Goodyear
Tire, and Mutual Life Insurance Company directors as direc¬
tors of the League. Significantly enough the sum mentioned
was only a little less than the billions controlled by the mem¬
bers of the NAM. (In TNEC monographs, NAM-controlled
wealth is listed at 60 billions.)
Another coincidence was the testimony of Heber Blanken-
BIG MONEY MEN
205
horn before the National Labor Relations Board. He stated
that big business was spending at least $80,000,000 a year for
industrial espionage, for machine guns and gas, for stool-
pigeons and goons, for anti-labor racketeering. Chief among
the spenders was General Motors. Almost all the spenders were
directors of the Liberty League.
Early in the League’s history the Senate committee re¬
leased a report on the first million dollars it had received,
showing that 90% came from a few contributors. It named the
League and its affiliates, including the Crusaders, Sentinels^
New York State Economic Council (later known as National
Economic Council), Women Investors in America, and lesser
branches. The official list of contributors:
duPont Family .$204,045
duPont Associates. 152,622
Pitcairn Family . 100,250
J. P. Morgan Associates. 68,266
Mellon Associates . 60,752
Rockefeller Associates . 49,852
E. F. Hutton Associates . 40,671
Sun Oil (Pew) Associates. 37,260
Banks, brokers . 184,224
Utilities . 27,069
Total: $929,974 out of $1,084,604 contributed
As usual, the duPont name led all the rest. Ir^n^e gave
$5000 and lent the League—the word loan is a euphemism in
such matters—$79,750 between August 15, 1934, the day of
founding, and December 31, 1935, the day of accounting, and
four more duPonts gave $5000 each and lent $10,000 each.
Among other well-known contributors were:
Sewell Avery of Montgomery Ward, $5,000.
Donaldson Brown, of duPont and General Motors, $5,000.
W. L. Clayton, leading cotton broker, banker, and Under
Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in the Truman Ad¬
ministration, $5,000.
A. Hamilton Rice, a supporter of the Franco regime in Spain,
$ 2 , 000 .
Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., of General Motors, $5,000 and $10,000
loan.
E. T. Weir, chairman of National Steel, $5,000.
John J. Raskob, loan, $10,000.
206
1000 AMERICANS
William S. Knudsen of General Motors, $5,000.
Perhaps more significant than the money contributions, was
the support by the following persons:
John W. Davis, attorney for J. P. Morgan, and onetime candi¬
date for president of the United States, member of National
Executive Committee.
Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy, of the Morgan Guaranty
Trust Co., treasurer.
Joseph M. Proskauer, leading Jewish layman, national execu¬
tive committee.
Alfred E. Smith, leading Catholic layman, national executive
committee.
Dr. Neil Carothers, director. College of Business, Lehigh Uni¬
versity, exposed as a contributor to the NAM’s “Six Star
Service’* (college professors paid to disseminate propaganda),
national advisory council.
Frederic R. Coudcrt, Jr., head of a law firm which has repre¬
sented Tsarist Russia, Hitler*s puppet Vichy; now a Con¬
gressman; national advisory council.
Dr. Edwin W. Kemmerer, national advisory council.
Demarest Lloyd, national advisory council.
Robert L. Lund (“Listerine Lund"), one of the reorganizers
of the NAM, national advisory council.
Channing Pollock, writer, endorser of Spiritual Mobilization,
national advisory council.
Hal E. Roach, Hollywood movie producer who collaborated
with the Mussolini family, national advisory council.
Dr. Walter E. Spahr, another NAM “Six Star Service’’ writer,
national advisory council.
Mrs. Chase Going Woodhouse.
In the Senate a “freshman” member who had become the
“hatchet man” of the administration, Schwellenbach, picked
three Liberty League men for a scathing attack. He cautioned
Governor Alfred E. Smith not to “give way to the temptation of
following the advice of J. Pierpont Morgan and John J. Ras-
kob, and Pierre duPont and all the rest of these rascals and
crooks who control the American Liberty League.” {Congres^
sional Record, January 23, 1936.)
Senator Robert M. La Follette, Jr., noting that the biggest
contributions to the League came from the duPonts, A. P.
Sloan, the Pews, E. T. Weir, Sewell Avery and Raskob, con¬
cluded: “It is not an organization that can be expected to de-
BIG MONEY MEN 207
fend the liberty of the masses of the American people. It speaks
for the vested interests.”
CHAPTER 16
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
America refused to listen to the few newspaper correspon¬
dents and the still fewer experts, such as Professor Robert
Brady (“The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism”), who
before the Second World War tried to warn the nation that
reaction and Fascism were the real dangers because there was
money in them, and because there was big money back of
them.
During and after the war the cartel investigators, Thur¬
man Arnold, Wendell Berge, a score of leading liberal Sen¬
ators, writers of a dozen books on the subject, and finally Mr.
O. John Rogge, who really got to the roots of Naziism, united
in stating the common finding: that Fascism in all countries is
a form of government originated by great industrial empires
and cartels, subsidized, placed in power and kept in power for
the benefit of the few—and against the general welfare of the
many.
This is an established truth. The logical conclusions from
the facts of history, therefore, would be that the little crackpot
Fascism of the American demagogues is not a danger unless the
big money takes it over. Therefore, the first of the several at¬
tempts of big American money to put over Fascism in our
country is worth recounting, since the episode itself was
thrown down rather than played up by the newspapers.
General Smedley D. Butler testified under oath before the
McCormack-Dickstein Committee, the first of the Un-Amer¬
ican Committees, that he had been offered the leadership of a
Fascist coup d’etat in America not once but forty-two times.
Of these the only important one was that backed by leaders of
the American Liberty League, Wall Street bankers and
brokers, and the ruling clique of the American Legion.
Despite the effort of all the newspapers (except the three
or four which had had a scoop) to destroy the effect of the
208
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
209
testimony, and despite newsweekly Timers trying to tell the
public it was just a joke, the Committee eventually issued its
report confirming General Butler's charge that there had been
a Fascist plot to seize Washington. (See Appendix 21.)
Most newspapers again suppressed or buried or belittled
the official verdict. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee
itself suppressed all those paragraphs of its report which named
names, especially those of Morgan bankers, and that of the
Liberty League, the equivalent of several of the super-patriotic
but secretly corporation-directed organizations which sup¬
ported Fascism in other lands.
The Committee suppressed the name of John W. Davis,
attorney for the House of Morgan. It suppressed the testimony
of witnesses that the arming of no less than 500,000 men for
General Butler to lead had been discussed, and that it was
planned to obtain rifles and bullets from Remington Arms
“On credit through the duPonts" . . . “one of the duPonts is
on the board of directors of the American Liberty League and
they own a controlling interest in the Remington Arms Co.
. . The Committee suppressed the testimony of General
Butler in which the agent plotting the Fascist coup promised
him that a new organization would be announced in two or
three weeks, and, stated Butler, “in about two weeks the Amer¬
ican Liberty League appeared, which was just about what he
described it to me.”
The reader is urged to turn to the appendix for the most
important parts of the documentary evidence, especially the
parts which the Un-American Committee suppressed—because
this Un-American Committee, like its successors, the Dies Com
mittee, the Wood-Rankin Committee and the Thomas-Rankiii
Committee, have all been un-American, inasmuch as they have
refused to take any action against Fascism and have, in fact,
given Fascists the use of their organization as a forum to spread
their ideas.
All these un-American Committees have the support of
the major portion of the press. In the case of the Liberty
League-Legion-Wall Street conspiracy to overthrow the United
210
1000 AMERICANS
States Government, there was one of the most reprehensible
conspiracies of silence in the long (and disgraceful) history of
American journalism. The sensational value of the news—the
main test in our country—can be judged even by the layman
from the headlines and opening paragraphs which appeared in
the Stern papers {Philadelphia Record, New York Post, and
two Camden papers) at the time:
$3,000,000 BID FOR FASCIST ARMY BARED
by Paul Comly French
(Copyright [Nov. 20] 1934)
Major General Smcdley D. Butler revealed today he has been
asked by a group of wealthy New York brokers to lead a Fascist
movement to set up a dictatorship in the United States.
General Butler, ranking major general of the Marine Corps
up to his retirement three years ago, told his story today at a
secret session of the Congressional Committee on un-American
Activities.
Before he appeared before the committee. General Butler gave
the (correspondent) a detailed account of the offer made to him.
“Of course I told the leaders of this Fascist movement that I
wasn’t interested in Fascism or in any other Ism,” Butler said with
characteristic vigor, “and that I wouldn’t consider any such propo¬
sition.
“The whole affair smacked of treason to me.”
He said he was ajiproached by Gerald G. MacGuire, who is
connected with the firm of Grayson M.-P. Murphy & Co., 52 Broad¬
way, and asked to organizx 500,000 veterans into a Fascist army.
“Shortly alter MacGuire first came to see me,” General Butler
continued, “he arranged for Robert Sterling Clark, a New York
broker, to come to my home at Newtown Square, Pa., to see me.”
Clark, who maintains offices at 11 Wall Street, is reported to
be worth more than $50,000,000.
General Butler outlined the details of the plan. He said Mac¬
Guire assured him “they have $3,000,000 ‘on the line' to start the
organization. . . .
“The upshot of his proposition was that I was to head a soldier
organization ... in Washington (to) take over the functions of
government. . . . MacGuire explained to me that they had two
other candidates for the position of ‘man on the white horse.' He
said that if I did not accept, an offer would be made to General
Douglas MacArthur, chief of staff of the United States Army, whose
term of office expires November 22, and that the third choice
would be Flanford MacNider, former commander of the American
Legion. So far as I know, neither General MacArthur nor Mac-
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS 211
Nider has been approached. Their names were merely mentioned
as ‘alternates.' ”
If the Un-American Committee wanted to get the whole
truth, Butler testified, it should call Banker Murphy (Morgan
banker, and treasurer of the Liberty League) Alfred E. Smith
(of the Liberty League), General Mac Arthur, Legion Com¬
mander MacNider, and Giannini banker Frank N. Belgrano,
and William Doyle, former Department Commander of the
Legion in Massachusetts and one of the “Royal Family” or
“king makers” of that organization. Apparently the Committee
did not want to get the truth.
There was only one means by which General Butler could
reach the public with the warning of what the Wall Street
men. Liberty Leaguers and American Legion chiefs were
planning. The General took to the air. He said:
Do you think it could be hard to buy the American Legion for
un-American activities? You know, the average veteran thinks the
Legion is a patriotic organization to perpetuate the memories of
the last war, an organization to promote peace, to take care of the
wounded and to keep green the graves of those who gave their
lives.
But is the American Legion that? No sir, not while it is con¬
trolled by the bankers. For years the bankers, by buying big club
houses for various posts, by financing its beginning, and otherwise,
have tried to make a strikebreaking organization of the Legion.
The groups—the so-called Royal Family of the Legion—which
have picked its officers for years, aren't interested in patriotism, in
peace, in wounded veterans, in those who gave their lives. ... No,
they are interested only in using the veterans, through their officers.
Why, even now, the commander of the American Legion is a
banker—a banker who must have known what MacGuire's money
was going to be used for. His name was mentioned in the testi¬
mony. Why didn’t they call Belgrano and ask him why he con¬
tributed?
On another occasion General Butler concluded his ex¬
pos^ with the remark that: “I've never known one leader of
the American Legion who has never sold them out.” {New
York Times, December 9, 1933.)
Smedley Butler was a great man. He was a Quaker. He
had a conscience. He did his duty as a soldier in the Marines.
He also wrote some years later:
212
1000 AMERICANS
“I spent 33 years (in the Marines) and during that period I
spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racke¬
teer for capitalism. ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the inter¬
national banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in
1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went
its way unmolested.”
And Fascist ideas, in 1934, “smacked of treason” to this
grim and fighting Quaker.
A little more than a decade later the Liberty League was
revived under another patriotic name—American Action. But
in the years between, scores, perhaps hundreds of large and
small organizations, all of them devoted to special interests
while pretending to function for the general good, tried to en¬
list a popular following—they already had the financial sup¬
port of the old Liberty Leaguers. A few of the most important
are worth noting.
The Committee for Constitutional Government
The chief object of this organization s propaganda is to
destroy the union labor movement. In this the Committee for
Constitutional Government is merely following the National
Association of Manufacturers’ line. A secondary objective is
the destruction of the Sixteenth Amendment and the passage
of their proposed Twenty-Second Amendment, which would
limit taxation of the rich, ease inheritance and gift duties.
The whole policy of the Committee for Constitutional
Government is to safeguard the wealth of the 38,000 American
millionaires. If the amendment became law, Henry Ford (in
1944) would have paid only $250,000 on his million dollar
income, instead of $800,000. Whereas Joe Smith, making
$2,000 a year and paying, say, $175 in taxes, would have had
to pay $500. Moreover, according to Congressman Wright Pat¬
man, small business would have been wrecked, and also the en¬
tire program of aid to veterans, due to a lack of tax money.
The Committee for Constitutional Government lists nu¬
merous persons with a Fascist record among its endorsers,
officials, advisory board members. The Senate Committee on
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
213
Elections and Privileges reported that the organization re¬
ceived the following sums from the following persons in 1940:
J. P. Morgan, 23 Wall St., New York, $1,000; Thomas W.
Lamont, same address, $1,000; Howard J. Pew of Philadelphia,
$4,000; Joseph N. Pew, Mary Ethel Pew and Mrs. Pew Myrin,
$4,000 each.
The Committee for Constitutional Government was
founded by Frank E. Gannett, the chain publisher. Its opera¬
tions have always been in the hands of Dr. Edward A. Rumely,
whose name was taken off the door when anti-Fascists kept re¬
minding the public that Rumely was sentenced to one year and
a day in the federal penitentiary after his conviction as a Ger¬
man agent in the First World War. Rumely had secretly
bought a newspaper, the New York Mail, with money supplied
by the German government, and used it for German propa¬
ganda purposes.
Another notable member is Samuel S. McClure, founder
of newspaper syndication, and in the 1930’s a propagandist for
Mussolini and Italian fascism.
Most active labor-fighter of the organization is ex-Con-
gressman Samuel Pettengill, who also supplies a syndicated
column to many newspapers.
On the advisory board is ex-Senator Edward Burke, of
Nebraska, former member of the Khaki Shirts of America,
first uniformed frankly Fascist organization which wanted to
seize the Government.
Nominal head of the Committee for Constitutional Gov¬
ernment was the Reverend Dr. Norman Vincent Peale of
Marble Collegiate Church, New York. Thanks to exposes by
In Fact, Dr. Peale resigned. His place was taken by New York
University economics professor, Willford I. King.
In a series of exposes during May and June, 1944 (see
Congressional Record), Congressman Patman called the Com¬
mittee for Constitutional Government “the most sinister lobby
in Washington,'* the “No. 1 Fascist organization in the United
States”; and again on November 8, 1945, challenged by Repre-
214 1000 AMERICANS
sentative Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska to name Fascists, he
replied:
“The Committee for Constitutional Government represents a
lot of them. There is this fellow Gannett, a big chain newspaper
publisher . . . this fellow Pettengill, a renegade Democrat, and
this fellow McClure who spent 2 years over in Italy studying
Fascism under Mussolini . . . and Edward Rumely, their wheel-
horse, an ex-convict who was convicted for dealing with the enemy
—Germany—in World War I. . . . Pettengill, who used to be a
member of this house . . . the No. 1 fascist in America. . .
This indictment was privileged because made on the floor
of the House. But Patman repeated it on a radio broadcast,
saying: “Gannett is one of the most dangerous Fascists at large
in America. Samuel Pettengill ... I consider the No. 1 most
active Fascist in America.” {Labor, October 12, 1946.) The
charges have not been answered.
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
The past history of the Klan, known to everyone, tells of
hate and murder. All its members are the racist type of Fas¬
cists, hardly different from the Hitlerite racists. The Klan ap¬
parently financed itself by the sale of bedsheets at three or four
times their value.
The most important change in Klan policy came with the
arrival of the CIO in the middle 1930’s, and the first southern
drive of both the CIO and AFL in the middle 1940’s. The
Klan today makes its largest appeal to big and little business
which wants the South to remain un-unionized, underpaid,
underfed, and underprivileged.
A report on the meeting of Klan Chapter No. 1, Atlanta,
Georgia, held at Redmen’s Wigwam, Central and Hunter
Streets, May 13, 1946, with Grand Dragon Dr. Samuel Green
presiding, says in part:
“Dr. Green was visibly upset by attacks made against him and
the Klan. . . . He cursed Walter Winchell. . . . Green rehashed
the charges ... to the effect that the CIO is communist-dominated
and said: ‘This is an open declaration of war between the Klan
and the CIO.'
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS 215
“Green said: ‘The CIO is for the Negroes and Jews/ He also
attacked the Political Action Committee/'
Reporting from Atlanta, PM’s correspondent, Karl Pret-
schold, added:
“Green seems to realize that if the Klan is to grow its growth
must be based on opposition to the CIO. . . .
“In fighting the CIO the Klan will expect approval and help
from important groups in the South: reactionary employers, poli¬
ticians who fear unionism and will welcome aii ally who’ll fight
dirty.”
There is a long record of the flogging and tarring of union
organizers by Klansmen. Neither the Dies Committee nor its
two successors, both directed largely by Representative Ran¬
kin, have ever taken action against the Klan. Members have
stated publicly that they never will. The Klan today is a part
of the terroristic branch of business and industry, hardly dif¬
ferent from either Hitler’s or Mussolini’s Brownshirts and
Blackshirts. The true color of Fascism became visible when
the Klan made union labor its chief target. There is big money
in union busting.
National Association of Manufacturers and Churches
The Big Money is also invading the religious field. The
National Association of Manufacturers has a special and very
active propaganda department, the NAM Committee on Co¬
operation with Churches, whose purpose is to bring business
and religion together. Where an honest preacher has suggested
that perhaps the representatives of the democratic majority of
Americans, union labor leaders, participate in the conferences,
the NAM has withdrawn.
The 1944 annual officers’ directory of the NAM frankly
tells the purpose of its church work: “Clergymen and business¬
men generally have the same broad concepts of a better Amer¬
ica” but “difference in their perspectives often clouds this
basic agreement and sometimes leads to misunderstandings of
motives on both sides.’’ The NAM, through its propaganda
branch, NIIC, “has initiated the formation of hundreds of
216
1000 AMERICANS
local community businessmen’s committees on cooperation
with churches, and sponsors a continuous series of regional con¬
ferences between the clergy and management.”
But who directs this big propaganda movement?
Chairman of the committee is none other than Jasper E.
Crane, vice president of E. I. duPont de Nemour^ 8c Company.
Spiritual Mobilization
The same business interests aid or subsidize scores of reac¬
tionary religious organizations. Spiritual Mobilization was or¬
ganized by the Reverend Dr. James W. Fifield, Jr., pastor of
the Congregational Church of Los Angeles, after a similar or¬
ganization, Moral Re-Armament, was pretty well discredited
when its founder. Reverend Dr. Frank N. D. Buchman, was
publicly quoted as thanking God for Hitler. Fifield claimed
2,000,000 followers. He also attempted to mobilize all the
preachers in the United States into a reactionary movement
whose “basic freedoms pledge” was a thin veil for the fifth
freedom advocated by the NAM, namely, “free enterprise.” A
protest was issued by the Western Unitarian Conference signed
by 116 ministers and laymen, which accused the Fifield outfit
of thrusting “aside the Federal Council of Churches” in order
to champion the National Association of Manufacturers’
“American Way of Life.” The protest concluded with this
paragraph:
“Finally we raise these questions: 1, Why does this organiza¬
tion advertise in Gerald B. Winrod’s The Defender; 2, Since this is
a program of appeal to churches, why does it ‘not solicit funds
from the clergymen or churches which participate in its program’?
3, From whom does its money come?”
The last question was answered by the Unitarian Rev¬
erend E. T. Buehrer, editor of the Journal of Liberal Religion
(Spring issue, 1945):
“The ‘crusade to preserve free enterprise’ in America in the
face of growing popular demand for social responsibility in govern¬
ment, was destined from the beginning to be a divisive factor in
organized religion as it has long been in organized politics. The
National Association of Manufacturers, the Committee for Consti-
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
217
tutional Government and lesser organizations—the potentially
Fascist forces of the nation—have always had their individual
spokesmen in the various religious bodies. Now, as active, working
groups they have their counterpart in Spiritual Mobilization. , . .
“The National Association of Manufacturers had its attention
attracted to the minister. . . . James W. Fifield, Jr., and invited
him to be its guest speaker at a meeting in New York. He won
the confidence of those present, and their vigorous applause, with
his glorification of ‘free enterprise,' and he emerged from the
meeting with f50,000 which tliey enthusiastically contributed to
the crusade which he was about to organize. Under such auspices
was Spiritual Mobilization launched."
Buchmanism
The Episcopalian publication. The Witness, did some¬
thing no commercial publication has ever dared do: it exposed
Buchmanism’s main purpose: “a trap for labor." Behind all the
claptrap of moral regeneration, "sharing of sins," confessing,
and religious buncombe. Witness editor William Spofford saw
clearly that Buchmanism, because it is subsidized by the big¬
gest corporation heads in the world, was one of the many
movements designed to fool working people into accepting the
viewpoint, whatever it may be, of the corporate interests.
A spokesman for the Catholics, the late Cardinal Hinsley,
primate of Great Britain, threatened with excommunication
all members of his church who embraced Buchmanism.
A noted Protestant editor. Dr. Guy Emery Shipler of The
Churchman, reported a Wall Street dinner for Buchmanites
almost entirely devoted to Jew-baiting.
The newspapers of America suppressed the news that the
nationally known organization, the Jewish War Veterans of
the United States, unanimously passed the following resolu¬
tion:
Whereas, Dr. Frank N. D. Buchman, founder of Moral Re-
Armament, also known as the Oxford Group Movement and
Buchmanism, is also the author of the expression, "Thank God
for Hitler . . . ";
Whereas, Buchmanism has been exposed in the British Parlia¬
ment;
Whereas, Dr. Guy Emery Shipler, leading Protestant editor,
has exposed the Buchmanites, as largely anti-Semitic;
218
1000 AMERICANS
Whereas, Dr. Buchman has cooporated with leading Buchman-
ites in all enemy nations, notably Himmler, the arch-murderer in
Nazi Germany, and the leading Japanese war makers;
Whereas, when the call to fight Naziism came in both Britain
and America the Buchmanites claimed exemption from the draft
saying they were a religious movement;
Whereas, both in Britain and America public officials have
denounced Buchmanites as draft dodgers, and forced them to
register;
Whereas, in general, the Moral Re-Armament movement may
be described as Fascist, subsidized by native Fascists, and with a
long record of collaboration with Fascists the world over;
Therefore, be it resolved by the Jewish War Veterans of the
United States, that they join in denouncing Buchmanism, the Ox¬
ford Group Movement and Moral Re-Armament as Fascist in its
viewpoint, as un-American, and as a menace to the world's war
against the common enemy of mankind.
The most noted endorsers and financial subsidizers of
Buchmanism:
Heinrich Himmler, the world’s greatest mass murderer,
and Rudolf Hess, who made a trip to England in the begin¬
ning of the war in an effort to align fellow Buchmanites to
switch the war—to turn the Allies against Russia instead of
Germany.
Henry Ford, who sent his own physician in his private
plane to aid Dr. Buchman.
William Randolph Hearst, who in the 1930’s published
signed propaganda articles by Hitler, Mussolini, Goering and
Goebbels.
Harvey Firestone, a rubber baron.
The late Harry Chandler of the Los Angeles Times, one
of the most violent enemies of labor in the American press.
George Eastman, Paul Shoup, Elmer Howlett and scores
of other California industrialists and enemies of labor.
(The Buchmanites use hundreds of noted names as en¬
dorsers, Herbert Hoover’s, for example, but a friend of the
former president informed the writer that Mr. Hoover had
never endorsed Buchmanism. In most Cases the persons named
as followers have been induced to endorse a playlet presented
by the Buchmanites. Some of America’s greatest labor leaders
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
219
have been listed through this device, but unions everywhere,
especially in the Cramps’ Shipyards and in Detroit, have pro¬
tested Buchmanite infiltration and propaganda.)
Tool Owners* Union
In the 1940’s the successors to the Liberty League dropped
a lot of the old hypocrisy, declared themselves more and more
openly the agencies for the preservation of profits, special
privilege, the free enterprise system; and naturally opponents
of liberal ideas (such as embodied in the New Deal) and of the
chief beneficiaries of those ideas and program, the labor move¬
ment.
The Tool Owners* Union was an attempt to enlist a large
percentage of the 50,000,000 Americans said to have an interest
in the tools of production by holding stocks and bonds, owning
life insurance, having bank deposits and operating small busi¬
nesses or engaging in farming or professional activities. The
National Association of Manufacturers and the Liberty League
had been content, in the past, with the Hitler-Pareto-James
Burnham-Henry Luce-Lawrence Dennis theory of a ruling
elite; this was the first appeal for a mass following for reaction.
In 1945 one Hector Lazo, public relations director for
the Loose-Wiles Biscuit Company, approached the National
Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber
of Commerce with the idea. “I am completely and thoroughly
convinced that this job cannot be done by either the United
States Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of
Manufacturers, or by either of these two organizations working
with their individual identities. It must be done through a new
organization, of course, backed by business. . . . We must
boldly step into the picture or we will be responsible for the
failure of private enterprise ... a religion with us.*’ Mr. Lazo
proposed the name “American Educational Committee,” later
stated that the Tool Owners* Union “is doing the job I sug¬
gested.”
Another notable citizen approached by Lazo was Fuller of
the SEP. The magazine (September 21, 1946) endorsed Tool
Owners’ Union as a “middle class movement for the millions.”
220
1000 AMERICANS
Among the members and endorsers of Tool Owners
Union are:
Raoul Desvernine, director and attorney, formerly of the
Liberty League and former president of Crucible Steel.
Dr. Alfred P. Haake, who served with the NIIC or propa¬
ganda branch of the National Association of Manufacturers;
spoke at meetings of the Citizens USA Committee, which has
sponsored speeches by Gerald L. K. Smith and Lawrence
Dennis; helped organize the American Economic Foundation
with Fred G. Clark of the Crusaders. Haake appears on forums
as an “economist,” is never described as a paid employee of
General Motors.
Whiting Williams, industrial relations consultant, whose
name appears (along with that of George E. Sokolsky, the syn¬
dicated columnist, and two or three others) in the La Follette
Committee’s expose of National Association of Manufacturers’
secretly hired writers and speakers.
James G. Stahlman, union-hating publisher of the Nash¬
ville Banner and onetime chairman of the strikebreaking de¬
partment of the American Newspaper Publishers Association,
lyrically announced (in a two-column poem, no less) that he
had “joined a union’’—the Tool Owners’ Union, of course.
The big newspapers, many of them the very ones which
had refused the advertising of Consumers’ Union, accepted the
advertising of Tool Owners’ Union without question.
However, when the T.O.U. sought permission to operate
in New York, real union men appeared at the hearings. CIO
counsellor Mortimer Wolf and AFL counsellor Emil Schlesin-
ger asked the incorporator and apparent owner, Allen W.
Rucker, about the relations of Dr. Haake and “the Fascist
Gerald L. K. Smith.” “What is a Fascist?” Rucker replied,
adding that so far as he knew Smith was “an evangelical
preacher with some extreme ideas on economics.”
Regional Director William Collins of the AFL declared
before the Board: “Its (the T.O.U.’s) real purpose is to acquire
gifts of money from corporate sources; to propagandize and
pressure a campaign of anti-unionism.” Several labor witnesses
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
221
called Tool Owners* Union a racket. (The labor-baiting co¬
lumnists and radio commentators, including Pegler, Fulton
Lewis, Jr., Kaltenbom, Mark Sullivan, Henry J. Taylor, and
the rest, did not take up this type of alleged racketeering.)
In giving its decision, the Board of Standards and Appeals
made history. It actually used the word fascist. Denying Tool
Owners’ Union ^he right to do business in New York, it stated:
“No more fascistic organization with all the potentiality for
undemocratic action and danger to our way of life has yet come
before the official attention of this board. The incorporators believe
that there is something wrong with our country, and that they
want to do something about it. But they reserve for themselves—
and in the final analysis the power of determining is in one man—
the means by which the dangers they see . . . are to be vanquished.
. . . We have just finished a great war started by a man who had
his own ideas as to what was wrong in the country in which he
was not born.”
National Economic Council.
Merwin K. Hart.
American Union of Nationalist Spain.
Hart was the leading voluntary Franco propagandist in
America. His New York State Economic Council, now the Na¬
tional Economic Council, had among its first financial back¬
ers: Lammot duPont of the DuPont empire; John H. Rand,
Jr., leader in the National Association of Manufacturers,
and the author of the Mohawk Valley Formula, a widely
adopted plan for breaking strikes and smashing unions—
largely with the aid of the newspaper press; A. W. Erickson, a
big advertising agent; Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., of General Motors,
head of the NAM’s National Industrial Information Com¬
mittee; and J. H. Alstyne, president of Otis Elevator Company.
Associated with Hart in propaganda work: John Eoghan
Kelly, Reverend Edward Lodge Curran, Coughlin’s eastern
representative of the Christian Front; John B. Snow, H. W.
Prentis, Jr., of Armstrong Cork Company and NAM; Mrs.
Dilling, and Congressman Martin Dies.
General Franco and James True, inventor of the “kike-
killer,” a club he patented for killing Jews, both endorsed the
222
1000 AMERICANS
propaganda book ‘‘America Looks at Spain/* Hart stated as
facts in this book certain historic falsehoods, which even
Franco admits. For example, Franco s massacre of the working¬
men at Badajoz. Franco admits he shot those he terms “ene¬
mies’*; Hart whitewashes and denies everything. Hart states the
Phalange is not Fascist, Franco calls it his Fascist “falange.”
(These and other falsehoods were exposed in The Nation,
June 10, 1939, page 678.)
Hart’s American Union of Nationalist Spain was largely a
Coughlinite Christian Front outfit. Hart wrote for Social Jus¬
tice before it suspended—under threat of being stopped for
sedition. Hart had on his executive committee Lester M. Gray
of the New Yoik Christian Front, J. E. Kelly, Reverend Cur¬
ran, Patrick F. Scanlon, publisher of the Brooklyn Tablet,
one of the largest reactionary propaganda papers in America,
Joseph P. Kamp, publisher of pamphlets containing false¬
hoods against the CIO; and numerous anti-Semites. (Hart’s
fascism was defended by Sokolsky, the columnist, and inserted
in the Congressional Record by Senator Nye— Congressional
Record, May 23, 1941.) Hart’s complete record is given in
“Under Cover.*’
The Hart-Economic Council record includes: opposition
to bills ending child labor—this was branded “youth control”
and attacked as Russian communist in inspiration; opposition
to all health and sickness insurance—this would cost corpora¬
tions money; disenfranchisement of all on relief (at one time
10,000,000 American citizens). Hart’s big work has been fight¬
ing the Wagner Act. He and the New York Times both engage
in this activity. It is no coincidence that a file of the Times
shows that among the favored few whose letters appear often
in its columns is the Franco propagandist Flart. Hart also is
reprinted by G. L. K. Smith in his magazine, which was named
in the sedition indictments as used by alleged seditionists. It is
Hart’s Economic Council which later sponsored Upton Close’s
radio program—not heard in either New York City or Chicago
as Mutual’s key stations, WOR and WGN, were aware that
anti-fascists were prepared to protest to the Federal Communi-
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
223
cations Commission if this propaganda got into the big cities.
(Eventually Close and Hart were refused the air, owing to
enlightened protest.)
American Action, Inc.
‘‘Big business here (in America),” said the noted prosecu¬
tor of the small-fry Fascists, special assistant to the Attorney
General, O. John Rogge, “is not now threatened. It still con¬
trols virtually every phase of our economic and political life.
Its representatives in legislatures comply with the wishes of
the men with money. If a threat to their control should ever
really arise, I am convinced that large sections of top business
in America would follow the Thyssen pattern—[Thyssen first
subsidized Hitler, then got all industry to take over Naziism,
use it as an army to seize the nation]. At that time, the Fascists
will receive whatever sums they need.”
In American Action, the United States has its most im¬
portant and powerful successor to the Liberty League, subsi¬
dized by the biggest money in America, embracing for the first
time in one organization demagogues, crackpots, anti-Semites,
“Nationalists,” the National Association of Manufacturers*
biggest leaders, the most powerful newspaper chain in the
country, and Big Money.
Some time in January, 1946, In Fact and Federated Press
(which serves hundreds of labor weeklies) obtained the evi¬
dence that a great number of men and forces ranging from
Reactionary to Fascist, were organizing a movement to fight
the Political Action Committee.
Letters from Upton Close to Robert Lund and Joseph
Pew, two of the real pillars of the National Association of
Manufacturers, revealed the fact the name chosen by the ene¬
mies of the PAC would be AAC—American Action Com¬
mittee. Later, it became American Action, Inc. A board of
strategy mentioned by Close included Samuel Pettengill, Gen¬
eral Robert E. Wood, John T. Flynn, Merwin K. Hart, and a
R. E. Minnis of Wichita, Kansas.
When William A. Lamer, Jr., resigned as executive direc-
1000 AMERICANS
224
tor of the Wichita Town Hall Committee, he signed an affidavit
first mentioning American Action Committee (of which his
society was a subsidiary) and linking it to the Republican
Party. He swore that Herbert A. Brownell, Republican na¬
tional committee chairman, and its radio director, got Cecil
B. DeMille to make an anti-labor speech sponsored by the
Wichita committee.
Contributors to the Wichita Town Hall Committee,
stated Lamer, included Sewell L. Avery of Montgomery Ward,
Colonel McCormick, and members of the Pew family.
In March, 1946, Eugene Segal of the Scripps-Howard
press, publishing a series of exposes of native American Fas¬
cism, disclosed the fact that American Action Committee, in
addition to having corporation backers such as Wood and
Avery, also was keeping ‘‘under cover’* “some better known
Nationalists** lending their support to it, notably Gerald L. K.
Smith and Carl Mote, the Indiana telephone company op¬
erator and notorious anti-Semite. In February Smith had sent
a mimeographed letter to his backers saying, “I challenge you
to join with such men as John T. Flynn, Upton Close, Colonel
Robert R. McCormick, General Robert Wood, Merwin K.
Hart and Sam Petteiigill in the formation of a new dynamic,
crusading Nationalist political committee. If you accept this
challenge such a committee will sweep the nation.**
On October 7, 1946, Carroll Kilpatrick of the Chicago
Sun reported that American Action, Inc., had raised a million
dollars for an election “purge** of PAC-endorsed Congres¬
sional candidates. Among the new names of persons helping
finance the organization were Ernest T. Weir and Lammot
duPont.
The New York Times and other newspapers took the
advertising of American Action. But when Friends of Democ¬
racy offered an advertisement in reply, the Times refused it.
Friends of Democracy had as its headline the following sen¬
tence: “A smoke screen organization for nationalist, pro-Fas-
cists, anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic hate-mongers, pre-war
isolationists and present-day defeatists.** It also declared that
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
225
the public deserved to know who was behind American Action,
and listed eight persons, as follows:
“Robert E. Wood, head of America First Committee, who
wrote in July, 1941, ‘I have not rejected (Father Charles Coughlin’s)
Christian Social Justice Movement. I welcome their support. . .
“Merwin K. Hart . . . U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert
Jackson said: ^Merwin K. Hart ... is well known for his pro¬
fascist leanings. . . .*
“Upton Close, radio commentator .. . twice dropped from net¬
work broadcasts because of unreliability. . . . (Close has since been
dropped a third time.)
“Robert M. Harriss .... who worked with the hate-mongering
Christian Front. . . .
“Samuel B. Pettengill .... whose activities Patman labelled
‘sinister and sordid.*
“John T. Flynn, former New York head of America First who
is now decrying present attempts at world cooperation.
“Col. Robert R. McCormick . . . whose newspaper, the Chi¬
cago Tribune, is the darling of every anti-Semitic group in the
country.**
When the national executive council of American Action
was announced, a new importance clearly attached itself to the
organization: Chairman was Edward A. Hayes, veteran of the
two world wars, ‘'actively engaged in fighting against subver¬
sives since 1916,” and commander of the American Legion,
1933-1934; noted members included Ray Kelly, lawyer, and
past national commander of the Legion; Lou Kessler of Seattle,
a veteran; Colonel Robert E. Condon, another “active in
American Legion.** The announcement also said: “American
Action will extend its full cooperation and assistance in the
broad field of Americanism as set out in the programs of the
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled Amer¬
ican Veterans, Amvets, and all other truly representative
American Veterans patriotic and fraternal organizations.’*
Notably absent in the listing was the American Veterans Com¬
mittee, the only important veteran group which has a truly
liberal and democratic program. (Union Labor Legionnaires
are part of the Legion, hope to liberalize it.)
Prominent on the national committee was Robert M.
226
1000 AMERICANS
Harriss, listed as a “cotton broker/* but not identified as the
financial adviser to Father Coughlin during the days of the
subversive Social Justice, the speculations in silver, and the
years of preaching of anti-Semitic falsehood, along the Hitler
line, in America.
A “substantial amount of money” was contributed for the
work of American Action by General Wood, according to a
confidential money-raising letter which Friends of Democracy
obtained. Other financial angels were Joseph Pew, Lammot
duPont, Ernest Weir, John J. Raskob of the DuPont empire
and General Motors, and William H. Regnery.
These meii were described as “wealthy industrialists seek¬
ing the defeat of Congressmen they can’t control” and “Amer¬
ican Fascists seeking to preserve property rights and ignoring
human rights,” by Congressman Patman (over Ed Hart’s
forum, station WINX, Washington, October 13, 1946).
As election day neared, the Scripps-Howard newspapers,
which had exposed American Action, made a complete about-
face, and published an editorial endorsement.
“To fight Communism, defeat Communist-backed candi¬
dates for Congress and rally to this job anti-Communist voters
all over the country is the announced excellent purpose of the
newly formed organization, American Action, Inc.,” wrote
Roy Howard’s Mitorial hacks, forgetting that an honest re¬
porter employed by the same Lord Howard had exposed red¬
baiting by this organization as a smokescreen. That was Oc¬
tober 19. On October 28, Gerald L. K. Smith wrote to “all
people associated with the America First Crusade” “to co¬
operate” with American Action. Gentile News, which still ped¬
dles the notorious forgeries known as “The Protocols of Zion,”
urged the formation of local units of American Action by its
readers. Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling, alleged seditionist, whole¬
heartedly endorsed American Action.
The first indication that American reactionaries and
American Fascists might unite their forces, was noted by
Friends of Democracy in its November 30, 1946, issue of Battle,
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS 227
under the title “Hatriots Coalesce.” It found that “reaction¬
ary financiers and rabblerousing bigots moved quickly this
month toward a united front.
“Moving in from one side to join Lammot duPont, John
J. Raskob and Joseph Pew were Edward F. Hutton, Long
Island millionaire (and Wall Street broker); Robert Wason of
the National Association of Manufacturers; and Frank Gan¬
nett, owner of a New York newspaper chain.
“Moving in from the other was the ‘Hitler-Hke* Gerald L.
K. Smith, . . . Elizabeth Billing . . . and the anti-Semitic Eu¬
gene Flitcraft whose Gentile News called the united front ‘a
worthy cause’. . . .
“Cementing the extremes were ‘borderline’ groups such
as the National Economic Council, the Committee for Consti¬
tutional Government, America’s Future, American Action,
Inc. ‘Big-Shots’ move freely from one of these groups to the
other; key figures in each alternately cooperate with the finan¬
ciers and the anti-Semitic rabble.”
An occasion which may have historic importance was the
National Economic Council’s dinner (in the Waldorf-Astoria,
November 12, 1946) to celebrate the victory of reaction in the
Congressional election and to honor Upton Close, the radio
commentator who had been driven off the air three times by
popular protests. Hart presided, and had at the main table
the following notables: Messrs. duPont, Raskob, Pettengill.
Other prominent persons were Lambert Fairchild; Colonel
Edward D. Gray, one of the new leaders of American Action;
Harriss, the cotton broker; Joseph Karnp, “labor-baiter whose
work was recommended by the Nazis” and whose publica¬
tions were named in the sedition indictment; Edward A.
Rumely; and John A. Zellers, “who once spoke before Nazi
agent Frederick Auhagen’s American Fellowship Forum,” and
more recently for a New York Times forum—against labor, of
course.
“The interlocking directorates of the various unity
groups,” reported Battle, “further is exemplified by America’s
Future. Active in this group are Hutton; General Wood who'
228
1000 AMERICANS
also is a big-shot in American Action; Frank Gannett, a leader
in the Committee for Constitutional Government; and Robert
Wason of the National Association of Manufacturers. Also
fitting into the unity picture is Joseph Pew’* whose Pathfinder
“praised the united front” and endorsed American Action as
fighting all alien Isms.
This was the first time in five years that a sort of unity ex¬
isted between the top ranking reactionaries and the so-called
“vermin Fascists,” several of whom had been named in the
sedition indictments, and all of whom had been on the ap¬
proved list of Welt-Dienst, the chief Hitler foreign propa¬
ganda agency. Concluded Battle: “During the war period big
shots could scarcely risk associating with anti-Semites and Axis
sympathizers. The Gerald Smiths, the Eugene Flitcrafts and
even the Merwin K. Harts, as leaders of isolated movements,
can exercise only limited influence on American life. United,
and hiding behind the duPonts, the Raskobs, the Huttons, and
the Woods, they can shape America’s future.”
Significantly, Kenneth Ellis (Federation to Fight Fascism)
noted that “American Action, Inc., has a great deal of money.
It has a great deal of power. Its members own the financial re¬
sources of the Republican Party. Some of its members own a
large part of the financial resources of the Democratic Party.
Its chief organizers and promoters have had the endorsement
of the Nazi Party, the Falange, and the Sinarquistas; therefore
its ramifications are not ‘American,’ but international, and
furnish the political student with evidence of the transition of
Fascism from a ‘national’ to an ‘international’ type of organi¬
zation.”
Following the celebration of its 1946 election victory,
American Action and its sponsors received support from va¬
rious significant sources: the $65,000-a-year Hearst columnist
Westbrook Pegler wrote enthusiastically of founder Merwin
Hart as one who works “openly for American principles”; the
South Carolina chapter of Columbians, an organization whose
heads were being jailed in Georgia, changed its allegiance to
American Action; the coalition of hatemongers, fascists, Chris-
BIG MONEY ORGANIZATIONS
229
tian Fronters and the heads of the National Association of
Manufacturers and approved by the New York Enquire'/s ed¬
itor, William Griffin, who had been named in the first two
sedition indictments dismissed by the District Court and now
in appeal by the Government; Senator O'Daniel of Texas
stated that American Action would “offset the Moscow left
wing CIO-PAC”; Federated Press named among new sponsors
and endorsers Ogden H. Hammond, propagandist for Franco,
Edgar Queeny of the Monsanto Chemical Company, Thomas
Creigh, counsel for the Cudahy Packing Company, and Mau¬
rice B. Franks of the National Association of Yardmasters, who
is a union official but who fights the regular unions.
If General Smedley Butler were alive today he would note
history repeating itself, but in more alarming tones. The old
American Liberty League and America First have been resur¬
rected, past commanders of the American Legion are directing
the new organization, and although there is no repetition of
the plot to march 500,000 men on Washington and establish
a Fascist dictatorship, there is the appearance for the first time
in American history of a coalition of demagogues, hate-
mongers, “vermin fascists’’ and the most respectable and most
powerful heads of corporate business. It was out of a similar
mixture of the three main ingredients, corporation financing,
war veterans, and Fascist demagoguery, that the Fascist move¬
ment grew and conquered in all the lands in which it has a
bloody history.
CHAPTER 17
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE
It must by now be as obvious to the reader as it is to the
writer that it is not a coincidence that the same names of men
and corporations appear in most chapters: they oppose the
TVA, the MVA, the St. Lawrence development; they control
or influence magazines and the newspaper press; some belong
to the National Association of Manufacturers, others to reac¬
tionary organizations; some deal in patent medicines, most of
them contribute money to the presidential and other political
campaigns, some are the American endorsers of Hitler and
Mussolini; almost all of them are defenders and spokesmen for
‘'the American Way of Life,'’ the “free enterprise” system
which—they say—has made America what it is.
The foregoing chapters, and the documents which follow,
cite but a few samples of the thousands of available documents,
the millions of words of evidence which the writer has col¬
lected in thirty-eight years of journalism, and more especially
in the period 1940-1917, when he has had the assistance of many
among his 175,000 newsletter subscribers in every state of the
Union.
The purpose of the writer has been to follow the Euripi-
dean principle, to “let the facts speak for themselves.” There
are facts and facts, and one must choose. The philosopher
undoubtedly meant an honest selection, an honest presenta¬
tion, made perhaps by some olympian mind inhabiting a
region where prejudice is unknown.
The facts in this volume, and the documentation, were
chosen for several reasons, the most important of which is their
general suppression, or at best, their “burial,” by those whose
first duty it is to publish them—the newspapers, magazines,
radio, and lesser means of communication.
The facts here presented speak for themselves, and require
little explanation, almost no editorial comment. But, since
230
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE
231
it is not only a convention that the concluding section, or at
least the concluding chapter of a volume of this nature should
contain certain “constructive criticism,” and because there is
actually a great public demand for editorial opinion, the pres¬
ent writer must yield to the extent of enlarging on the follow¬
ing statements:
1. The American public is misinformed. The press has
failed in its duty.
2. The report of the Commission on Freedom of the Press
confirms the charge that the newspapers do not serve the peo¬
ple, do not serve Democracy, can vulgarize mankind, and can
endanger the peace of the world. A free (honest) press is there¬
fore of more importance than anything else in America.
3. Under the present system, the rulers of the nation are
able to deceive the people; they can even destroy what is best
for the majority, not only the New Deal, but any Square Deal.
4. They can also lead the nation into the Third World
War, using the atomic bomb, which will destroy civilization.
5. Atomic fission, and the harnessing of water power
throughout the world, can assure plenty for its two billion
inhabitants. But the few oppose such development today as
they have throughout the hundred years of the industrial
revolution.
6. The American Way is not the free enterprise of the
National Association of Manufacturers but the greatest good
of the greatest number.
i. Misinformed America
The great, startling, and tragic impression of many years
of journalism can be summed up in one little phrase: the
people do not know.
Every fact stated in this book, every document in the
appendix, should have been common knowledge. Given a
really free press, by which is meant an honest press in the
service of freedom, not merely a press free to do almost every¬
thing to gain profits (or power) for its owners, the American
people would be the best informed in the world, and an in-
232
1000 AMERICANS
formed electorate would be able to produce a governing body
which would devote itself to the most important phrase in the
preamble of the Constitution of the United States: to '‘promote
the general welfare.”
The fact is the public does not know but is very anxious
to know. The thousands of professors, school teachers, lawyers,
doctors, labor union leaders, rank and file workers, members
of Congress, and others who have written the author every
year for the past seven years—and only 3,000 letters a year
could be answered—prove beyond question that even the
better-informed are ill-informed. There is a great hunger, a
real need for information in our country, which the agencies
of mass information wilfully refuse to fill.
On many subjects which concern the health, wealth and
happiness of the American people, we cannot say today, ‘‘we
hold these truths to be self-evident.” Many of the most vital
truths about our political and business system, our social
and economic system, are not common knowledge, as they
should be.
The chief reason for this state of affairs is the failure of
the press (and lesser means of mass communication) to serve
the people. The critics of the press began saying so at the turn
of the century, but since the press itself would not give their
views to the public, only a small minority of the American
people has known the cause of this blockade.
In 1947 the Commission on Freedom of the Press in its
report confirmed everything the critics said, went even further
in a general indictment which damns the newspapers as an
enemy of the progress of the United States. (I shall refer to
this report immediately; its importance lies more in its authori¬
tative sponsorship than in any new findings.)
If only a good minority of the American press—and not
1% or less—really served the interests of its readers, the most
intelligent stratum everywhere would know, as a small minor¬
ity in New York, St. Louis, Chicago and York, Pennsylvania,
does know, a major portion of the facts as given in this book.
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE 233
and similar documentary evidence, which the vast majority
of our newspapers have suppressed.
If we had an honest press, every citizen in South Dakota
would know about the $53,700 fund raised by a dozen Eastern
industrialists to support two Senators (Bushfield and Gurney)
and two Representatives (Case and Mundt) who voted for the
National Association of Manufacturers’ sponsored anti-labor
laws and for every reactionary measure introduced in Congress
which would directly and financially benefit members of the
National Association of Manufacturers.
If we had an honest press in Montana the people of that
state would know how much MVA could improve their living
conditions.
If we had an honest press the St. Lawrence development
would have been completed years ago.
If we had an honest press both sides of every controversial
question would be known to the public, and it would no
longer be possible to lead a nation into war for the benefit of
a few bankers and munitions makers.
Or oil interests.
As for atomic energy. . . .
The fight against David Lilicnthal as chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission continued for days as a sort of
individual filibuster by one of the discredited Bourbon Sena¬
tors, Boss Crump’s McKellar, enemy of the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the people of the South. Few paid any attention
to it. McKellar stood for “pork and patronage”; McKellar lied
and lied about Lilienthal being a Communist, and even tried
out the old anti-Semitic Hitler line of asking him about his
parents, and where they were born. It was, as the Republican
New York Herald Tribune said, a “sordid scene.”
Its significance, however, became apparent when from
both sides of the Senate chamber the elder “statesmen” arose
to take their stand on the side of McKellar.
Who were these gentlemen among Senators? And why
were they joining their despicable colleague?
“The answer, which is very simple, comes in two parts,”
234
1000 AMERICANS
wrote the Herald Tribune Washington correspondent Joseph
Alsop (February 14, 1947). “It is significant first of all that the
first voice raised against Lilienthal after that of McKellar
should have been the voice of Senator Styles Bridges of New
Hampshire. Bridges’ burning conviction that the views of the
power lobby were the charter of American liberties has long
been known to most people in Washington. It is also signifi¬
cant that one of the two or three atomic committee members
probably opposed to Lilienthal should be Senator Richard
Russell of Georgia, which is about the only remaining state
where the power people have a real grip on local politics.
“These are straws in the wind. , . . The majority of the
American power industry has gained wisdom in the past 14
years. But there is still a strong minority. . . . These men are
putting the heat on. They are putting it on, furthermore, be¬
cause they are well aware of the probable revolutionary effect
of energy production of atomic fission, and wish to get this
incalculable national asset into the kind of mediocre, fumbling
hands they regard as ‘safe.’ ’’
2. One Solution: A Free Press
Under these circumstances, the present writer reverts
again to a theory based on almost four decades of experience.
It is a theory originally propounded by a man who began
public life as the first and greatest advocate of freedom of the
press in the history of America, the author of the First Amend¬
ment to the Constitution—which ennobles one and only one
private enterprise—the newspaper business.
Jefferson declared: “The basis of our government being
the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to
keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we
should have government without newspapers, or newspapers
without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to
prefer the latter.” (To Carrington, 1787.)
It is generaly conceded that given a free press, all other
freedoms are safe.
235
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE
A free press is a fulcrum and lever by which the whole
world can be moved.
But, unfortunately , . . these instruments more than any
other are now controlled by a few, perverted for wealth and
power rather than used for the general welfare.
For twenty years the present writer has published the irre^
futable proof that the force Jefferson believed higher than
government is actually a commercial, prostituted, irresponsible,
falsifying agency, actually an enemy of the American people.
In these years only two or three notable voices joined in this
warning.
In March, 1947, however, the most important report on
the press in our history was made by the Commission on Free¬
dom of the Press, headed by Chancellor Robert Hutchins of
the University of Chicago. The Commission refused to name
names of publishers and papers, thus discounting its findings
considerably. Perhaps so large a majority of the newspapers
came in for censure that a short honor roll of honest excep¬
tions—say, six or seven, or less than 1% of the nation’s 1750
dailies—would have been better.
The Commission, however, dignified and made authorita¬
tive the indictment of the American press first written by Will
Irwin in 1910 (in Collier's; 24 publishers refused to use the
articles as a book); by Upton Sinclair in 1920 (he had to pub¬
lish “The Brass Check” himself); by Harold L. Ickes and the
present writer.
In addition to Chancellor Hutchins the following persons
participated in the investigation, in the writing of the report,
and several books on related subjects:
Zechariah Chafee, Jr., vice chairman, professor of law at Har¬
vard.
John M. Clark, professor of Economics, Columbia.
John Dickinson, professor of law. University of Pennsylvania;
general counsel, Pennsylvania Railroad.
William E. Hocking, professor of philosophy, emeritus. Har¬
vard.
Harold D. Laswell, professor of law, Yale.
Archibald MacLeish, poet, former Assistant Secretary of State.
236 1000 AMERICANS
Charles E. Merriam, professor of political science, emeritus.
University of Chicago.
Reinhold Niebuhr, professor of ethics and philosophy of re¬
ligion, Union Theological Seminary.
Robert Redfield, professor of anthropology. University of
Chicago.
Beardsley RumI, chairman. Federal Reserve Bank of New
York.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, professor of history. Harvard.
George N. Shuster, president. Hunter College.
The Commission not only confirmed every charge ever
made against the press, but went beyond anything stated by
previous critics. The Commission used such phrases as the
following:
“These instruments can spread lies faster and farther than
our forefathers dreamed when they enshrined the freedom of the
press in the First Amendment of the Constitution."
“The press can be inflammatory, sensational and irrespon¬
sible.*'
“Many a lying, venal and scoundrelly public expression must
continue to find shelter under a ‘freedom of the press* built for
widely different purposes. . . .**
“One of the most effective ways of improving the press is
blocked by the press itself. By a kind of unwritten law the press
ignores the errors and misrepresentations, the lies and scandals of
which its members are guilty.**
“The news is twisted.*'
“Too often the result is meaninglessness, flatness, distortion,
and the perpetuation of misunderstanding among widely scat¬
tered groups.**
“Instances of press lying.”
“Deliberate falsifications and reckless misstatements of fact.”
“The time has come for the press to assume a new public
responsibility.**
The Commission’s report begins by saying that the answer
to the question if the free press is in danger is Yes. The report
continues:
“The few who are able to use the machinery of the press as
an instrument of mass communications have not provided a serv¬
ice adequate to the needs of the society. . . .
“Those who direct the machinery of the press have engaged
from time to time in practices which the society condemns. . . .
“These agencies (of mass communication) can advance the
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE 237
progress of civilization or they can thwart it. They can debase and
vulgarize mankind. They can endanger the peace of the world.*'
“When the man who claims the moral right of free expression
is a liar, a prostitute whose political judgments can be bought, a
dishonest inflamer of hatreds and suspicion, his claim is unwar¬
ranted and groundless. From a moral point of view, at least, free¬
dom of expression does not include the right to lie as a deliberate
instrument of policy.”
“The press must also be accountable. It must be accountable
to society for meeting the public need and for maintaining the
rights of citizens and the almost forgotten rights of speakers who
have no press. It must know that its faults and errors have ceased
to be private vagaries and have become public dangers.”
“The agencies of mass communications are big business, and
their owners are big businessmen.”
“The published charges of distortion in the press resulting
from the bias of its owners fall into the categories that might
be expected. . . . Bias is claimed against consumer cooperatives,
against food and drug regulations, against Federal Trade Com¬
mission orders designed to suppress fraudulent advertising, and
against FCC regulations affecting newspaper-owned broadcasting
stations.*'
“One of the criticisms repeatedly made is that the press is
dominated by its advertisers. ... A recent illustration indicates
the kind of pressure that may be exerted.”
“The press ignores the errors and misrepresentations, the lies
and scandals of which its members are guilty.”
“The news is twisted by the emphasis on firstness, on the novel
and sensational; by the personal interests of the owners; and by
pressure groups.. . .
“When we look at the press as a whole, however, we must
conclude that it is not meeting the needs of our society. The Com¬
mission believes that the failure of the press is the greatest danger
to its freedom.”
The Commission courageously used the words “lie” and
“liars” in referring to the press and the press lords. It even
used the old-fashioned term “prostitute” for certain owners of
newspapers, a term which is more applicable today for editors
and publishers than it was a generation ago for poor underpaid
newspaper workers.
The Commission noted the importance of Federal Trade
Commission orders “designed to suppress fraudulent advertis¬
ing.” There is only one writer and one publication which has
for many years made this one of the tests of the integrity or
238
1000 AMERICANS
corruption of 99% of the press, and the reader will have no
difficulty in guessing both names.
The Commission, without crediting the copyright source,
the newsletter In Fact, takes up its February 25, 1946, expose
of the attempt by United States Steel during the strike that year
to corrupt some 2500 newspapers by sending them editorials
(against labor) and news items (against labor) along with paid
advertising (against labor). It notes that Editor & Publisher
claims that only 15% of these newspapers were so corrupted,
at that time, but that is not the whole truth. Months later,
when CIO organizers came to certain towns, the corrupt dailies
and weeklies there began publishing the old Steel Company's
editorials—and obtaining new advertising as a result.
However, none of these items is of much importance com¬
pared to the two main facts of the Commission’s indictment:
the press is not serving society; the press and the other agencies
of mass communication '‘can vulgarize mankind. They can
endanger the peace of the world.”
Thousands of plans and suggestions have been received
by the, present writer for establishing an honest press. Most
of them are unworkable. The only solution would be more
newspapers endowed by someone like Marshall Field (founder
of PM in New. York and The Sun in Chicago) or the establish¬
ment of a chain of standard daily newspapers by a powerful
organization possessing the required number of millions of
dollars—at least $5,000,000 for each venture—enough to hold
on until successful.
The Cooperatives, the Farmers Union, the AFL, the
CIO, the Railroad Brotherhoods, could establish honest news¬
papers.
If a decent number succeeded they would at least serve as
a yardstick for the press in the big cities, they would either
draw away readers or they would, indirectly, force the rivals
to stop suppressing and mishandling the news. But these must
be “straight” newspapers, they must not be the political organs
of their owners, even if the latter numbered millions and rep-
239
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE
resented, perhaps, a majority of the people. All they would
have to do is print the news.
We would then at last have a free press, the insurance for
all our freedoms. The great Joseph Pulitzer said that “Our
Republic and its press will rise or fall together.” We must,
therefore, have a “rising” press, otherwise our present irre¬
sponsible newspapers will drag the nation down with them.
3. They Destroy the New Deal
It was not only the “New Deal” in the early 1930’s that
captured the imagination of the majority, it was also the new
view of democracy which animated the spirit of millions of
people. Anyone who spent some time in Washington between
1933 and 1939, when war preparations began to dominate the
capital, could not help being impressed, and frequently in¬
volved, in something which was not Mr. and Mrs. Lindbergh's
Fascist “wave of the future,” but the Democratic wave of the
living present. For once it seemed to many persons that cam¬
paign promises were not merely campaign promises, that the
ideals of Jefferson and Lincoln were not just paper words but
guides to laws, that the phrase “the common people” would
be rescued from the joke makers and political fakirs, that Gov¬
ernment was about to serve the general welfare.
It did so.
For years the thousand money-seeking Americans through
their National Association of Manufacturers, the United States
and many local chambers of commerce, their hired Congress¬
men and hired columnists, and especially through their control
of at least 95% of the American press, were unable to stop
democracy in action.
In the summer of 1944 Aubrey Williams noted the des¬
perate efforts of our real public enemies—not the few gangsters
but the few who control wealth and power—to check the New
Deal. He mentioned especially the fight against the Security
and Exchange Commission which required them to “tell the
truth about what they were selling”; the Wages and Hours
Act which provided a living wage; and the Labor Standards
240
1000 AMERICANS
Act which prevented them from throwing a man into jail “for
asking his fellow worker to join a union.*'
“They don't like it,'' he wrote. “To destroy these and
other laws enacted in behalf of people, they have undertaken
to poison the people against the people's government. The)'
have marked for destruction:
The Fair Labor Standards Act
The Fair Securities Exchange Act
The Fair Employment Practices Commission
The Federal Communications Commission
The unemployment feature of the Social Security Act
The Farm Security Administration
The Production Credit Administration
The National Housing Administration
The Bank for Co-operatives
The Tennessee Valley Authority
The HOLC
“They are fighting the Wagner-Dingell-Murray Bill which
would lay tlie foundation of the public health program in the
nation.
“What we have here is a head-on collision between those
who hold that government is the agent of the people to help
tliem meet situations that are beyond their individual and
group power; and those who hold that government should be
limited to a police function, to a State Department to deal
with foreign nations, and to a Tax Collecting Department."
If the enemies of the public welfare program succeeded, it
would mean “low taxes for the rich, high taxes for the poor,"
the cutting of wages, lengthening of the work week, unemploy¬
ment. “In a coldblooded statement, a member of the board of
the NAM declared that ‘it is socially undesirable to have full
employment.' "
The elections of 1946, returning a majority of reactionary
Republicans and Democrats, resulted almost immediately in
the announcement of their program to destroy most of the
gains and reforms Mr. Williams enumerated. '
The National Association of Manufacturers first of all
destroyed the Office of Price Administration, using advertising
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE 241
and the support of the press in its claims that an immediate
flow of goods at lower prices—in accordance with their so-
called law of supply and demand—would soon right the exas¬
perating situation. The result was a continuous rise in prices
(unaccompanied by a parallel rise in wages) which in 1947
resulted in predictions of a new panic, or at least a “recession,”
and a call by the President for a reduction of prices to prevent
economic disaster.
Thanks to the aid it got from the press, the NAM also
was able to put over the most vicious anti-labor bill in the
century’s history—the Taft-Hartley measure which was aimed
to destroy the Wages and Hours Act (the Fair Labor Standards
Act), the Norris-LaGuardia anti-injunction law, and the Wag¬
ner Act, and gains the unions had fought for and given blood
and treasure for during many bitter years.
The press suppressed the news when not one but eighteen
members of the House (and, later, five Senators) accused the
National Association of Manufacturers of writing the bill,
named the NAM lobbyists.*
We see in this episode the continuation, in even more
vicious circumstances, of the situation described in the Fourth
Chapter. The American people are the victims of the unholy
alliance of Big Business, the National Association of Manu¬
facturers, the members of Congress elected with funds supplied
by business, and the press owned or controlled or enslaved to
business and the perpetuation of the policy of suppressing the
news inimical to business interests.
The magazine press, to which the largest section of this
book is devoted, did nothing in the 1947 episode to enlighten
the public, to make up for the corruption of the newspaper
press.
The American public was fooled, as usual.
• Documentation: Congressional Record, April 14-16; statements by Con¬
gressmen Lesinski, Sabath, O’Toole, Holifield, Buchanan, Klein, Mrs. Norton,
and Blatnik; In Fact, issues of April 28 and May 5, 1947.
242
1000 AMERICANS
4. Endangering World Peace
The existing press cannot serve the people of America.
It cannot serve two masters. Therefore, most of the “construc¬
tive” recommendations made by the Commission (and thou¬
sands of others who have ideas and plans for'a free press) are
naive and useless. On the contrary, the press can vulgarize man¬
kind, and to a great extent it does. It can also, as the Commis¬
sion reported, “endanger the peace of the world.”
A similar charge has been made and proved not once but
a dozen times during, before and after the wars of Europe of
the past half century. In addition to the three Ms, Money,
Men and Munitions, it was discovered at a time wars became
more and more the affairs of people rather than that of hired
soldiers or even professional or standing armies, that Morale
played a great part in deciding defeat or victory, and that the
press pretty well accounted for good or bad morale.
The press for almost a hundred years has also been the
instrument by which such merchants of death as Zaharoff pro¬
duced international war scares—and thus promoted armament
races, which according to the findings of the Nye-Vandenberg
Committee contributed greatly to making war. (See Appen¬
dix 11.)
During the atomic scare period of the spring of 1947 the
Progressive Citizens of America paid $3,500 for a full page
advertisement in the New York Times which asked in bold
type: “If you mean oil, Mr. Truman, why say Greece?”
A mass meeting in Madison Square Garden had heard noted
speakers, including Henry A. Wallace and Dr. Harlow Shapley,
the famous Harvard scientist, plead for peace and against the
menace of a Third World War which the Truman Doctrine,
arming (as well as feeding) Greece and subsidizing the Turkish
military clearly indicated.
The Truman Doctrine was directed against the spread of
both the Soviet influence and the Soviet philosophy (Marxian
communism) in Europe—according to his March 12 address
to the Congress, but in the British labor press, a large part of
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE
243
the European press, and even in the newspapers and weeklies
and newsletters which serve Wall Street, it was stated openly
that it was the American free enterprise system, the plan for
doing bigger business, and especially the oil wealth of Arabia,
that the Truman Doctrine was aiming at.
‘‘World War III has begun,^* Henry Luce’s most circu¬
lated magazine, Lije, told its 22,000,000 readers (March SI):
“it is in the opening skirmish stage already.” Life reprinted a
large section of a book by James Burnham, who had succeeded
Lawrence Dennis as the “intellectuar* sponsor of American
“elite” Fascism. Burnham proposed the establishment of an
American Empire “not necessarily worldwide in literal extent
but world-dominating in political power, set up at least in part
through coercion (probably including war, but certainly the
threat of war) and in which one group of people . • . would
hold more than its equal share of power.”
This plea for war and for the establishment of a world¬
wide American ruling state—successor to the publisher’s own
“American Century,” which envisaged a smaller totalitarian
regime—^was indorsed by Luce and many newspapers. Although
avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a
superior people taking over the world and ruling it, began to
appear in the standard press, whereas the organs of Wall
Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevit¬
ably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets
under the American flag. For example. Business Week (March
22, 1947) said in the headline over its main news item: “New
Diplomacy, New Business; U. S. Drive to Stop Communism
Abroad Means Heavy Financial Outlay for Bases, Relief and
Reconstruction. But in Return, American Business is Bound
to Get New Markets Abroad.”
If we had an honest press the people of America would
have been informed during the great debate on military aid
to Greece and Turkey—as distinguished from funds for food,
shelter and clothing—of the opposition view which feared the
new policy would involve the country in war. The newspapers
suppressed, distorted or buried a view which, according to
the Gallup Poll of April 28, 1947, was, despite the press, the
244
1000 AMERICANS
view of the majority of the people of the country. Seventy-
three percent feared the Third World War. Again, as with
each of the four Roosevelt campaigns, public opinion was the
exact opposite of what the newspapers tried to form.
5. A World of Plenty
If we had an honest press the people of America would
know both their friends and enemies. They would know that
the enemy of all people, from the day of creation to the
present, is reaction. They would know what reaction is, what
it does, how close it is to Fascism.
More than a hundred years ago, in the early days of the
Industrial Revolution, it became known to many men that the
earth, the soil and the wealth hidden in the subsoil, were
enough to provide for the wants of all its inhabitants. In more
recent times scientists, inventors, geologists, and planners pro¬
duced the means to end poverty everywhere, to bring in the
world’s great age. Even before atomic fission was used for the
first time—to destroy human beings by the hundreds of thou¬
sands—it was already possible to feed, clothe and shelter the
earth’s two billion human beings. The National Survey of
Potential Product Capacity in the dark days of 1934, when
there were 12,000,000 unemployed in the United States, and
even a greater number, perhaps 20,000,000, on relief, reported
that there could be plenty for all. In 1945 President Kirtley
Mather of the American Association of Scientific Workers pre¬
sented (in “Enough and to Spare’’) the scientific evidence that
the good earth—and its scientific management—would provide
for all the inhabitants thereof a decent living, human dignity,
and true freedom. In 1947 the World Federation of Trade
Unions reported to the United Nations, meeting at Lake Suc¬
cess, that if it could work out an international policy, exploit¬
ing the world’s resources, controlling prices and controlling
profits, there could be employment for all, and the world’s
population could absorb the wealth of goods produced, poverty
would end, wars would end, and peace and happiness would
be universal.
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE
245
The representatives of the Federal Council of the
Churches of Christ in America (Protestant), the National Cath¬
olic Welfare Conference, and the Synagogue Council of Amer¬
ica (Jewish) issued a “Declaration on Economic justice”
(October 16, 1946) stating that “the material resources of life
are entrusted to man by God for the benefit of all” and sug¬
gesting that means be found “to distribute God’s gifts equi¬
tably.” (Although the thousand Americans who own or control
most of the nation’s wealth and resources belong to these three
religious denominations, not a word from any one of them
greeted the declaration of their spiritual leaders.)
With the possibility of harnessing atomic fission to indus¬
trial use, all doubt that science could remake the world—as
well as destroy it—disappeared.
“We have the means,” Dr. Vannevar Bush, wartime head
of American scientific research, told Columbia University
alumni, “for removing starvation and disease. We have almost
unlimited power in sight, that can make the waste lands bloom,
“We have the possibility of banishing disease. . . •
“We know, or can know, how to learn the truth, and to
tell it to one another throughout a healthy world that is secure
against the ravages of nature. It is the setting for a world of
peace and unity.
“One thing is lacking: good will and understanding.”
(The curious reader may search the New York Times of June
4, 1947, for this statement. He is advised to find the headline:
“Patterson Backs ‘Military Mind.* ’* Dr. Bush is mentioned,
even quoted, but not the foregoing paragraphs.)
In China and India starvation remained endemic. In the
United States people talked of a “recession” instead of a
depression.
But there was no longer a question, among scientists, of
potential plenty or enough for everyone; it was now a question
of abundance. Abundance remained unattainable because it is
impossible to have good will and understanding so long as
profits take precedence in certain men’s minds.
246
1000 AMERICANS
6. The American Way
Is what the American people want un-American?
When the slavery mob killed Lovejoy and wrecked his
press, the nation-wide protest was led by Wendell Phillips, one
of the great libertarians of our country. Wendell Phillips (for
many years head of the Anti-Slavery Society) held no post of
authority, and his words are merely the words of a patriot:
“No reform, moral or intellectual, ever came from the upper
class of society. Each and all came from the protest of martyr and
victim.
“The emancipation of the working people must be achieved
by the working people themselves.
“We affirm, as a fundamental principle, that labor, the creator
of wealth, is entitled to all it creates.
“Affirming this, we avow ourselves willing to accept the final
results of the operation of a principle so radical—^such as the over¬
throw of the whole profit-making system, the extinction of all
monopolies, the abolition of privileged classes, universal education
and fraternity, perfect freedom of exchange, and, best and grandest
of all, the final obliteration of that foul stigma upon our so-called
Christian civilization—the poverty of the masses. , . . Therefore,
“Resolved, That we declare war with the wages system, which
demoralizes the life of the hirer and the hired, cheats both, and
enslaves the workingman; with the present system of finance, which
robs labor, and gorges capital, makes the rich richer and the poor
poorer, and turns a republic into an aristocracy of capital; with
these slavish grants of the public lands to speculating companies,
and whenever in power we pledge ourselves to use every just and
legal means to resume all such grants heretofore made; with the
system of enriching capitalists by the creation and increase of pub¬
lic interest-bearing debts."
The public lands no longer provide a scandal, but much
more scandalous is the attack on the use of the public rivers
for light, power, and public welfare; against the TVA, the St.
Lawrence development and the MVA.
The most important principle in Wendell Phillips’ decla¬
ration was stated by a man in public office. He said merely:
“It has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have
labored and others have without labor enjoyed a large proportion
of the fruits. This is wrong and should not continue. To secure
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE 247
each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as pos¬
sible, is a worthy object of any good government.”
Any government official who made the same statement in
the days of the Dies Committee, the Rankin Committee and
the Thomas Committee would be hauled up on “loyalty*'
charges. The idea conflicts with the “free enterprise’* principle
of the National Association of Manufacturers, it conflicts with
the viewpoint of John W. Davis, the chief attorney for the
House of Morgan, who wrote the document which serves as a
guide for the Un-American Committee in functioning in favor
of reaction and big business.
(Of course, the author of the statement that the whole
product of labor should belong to the laborer, that no man
should be allowed to make a profit on the work of another
man, is not Karl Marx, but Abraham Lincoln. Is or is it not
good Americanism to take up the fight for the Wendell Phillips
and Lincoln doctrines, despite the sure knowledge the reac¬
tionaries or the Un-American Committee and the entire near¬
fascist political and journalistic world will reply with the usual
campaign of falsehood and red-baiting and “smears,** if not
threat of arrest and imprisonment? The present writer still
believes that both Phillips and Lincoln were better Americans
to follow than the men of the National Association of Manu¬
facturers in Congress.)
The present world is capable of providing security for all
through abundance; the coming age will use atomic power
either to destroy our civilization or to create a new or ideal
civilization. But there are also men and forces which will fight
to the death to prevent progress.
No attempt has been made here to draw up a list of the
thousand Americans who belong to this minority, nor even to
fix the number.
The present writer is aware that these thousand Americans
are the men who, as leading spirits of the National Association
of Manufacturers, decided just after the first election of Frank¬
lin Delano Roosevelt that the “capitalist system** of the United
States having again and again and again led to disaster, it was
248
1000 AMERICANS
time to change that term into something more palatable, and
so the phrase “free enterprise** was decided upon.
From 1933 to the present day every candidate for office,
including both Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Truman, was ap¬
proached on the subject, and every politician and statesman
at one time or another has issued a declaration in favor of free
enterprise. No public leader has opposed it.
The propaganda for free enterprise, now being made into
the most sacred cow of all the idols created by the press and
worshiped by all who profit by it, is accompanied by a witch¬
hunt against everyone who asks a question or makes a chal¬
lenge. It attacks the majority which voted for the New Deal,
the liberals who follow Wallace, and everyone who strives for
Lincoln’s ideal. Red-baiting, demagoguery, take the place of
reason, of the orderly presentation of the facts.
The world moves into opposing camps, and there is not
only talk of the coming war, but vast preparation. Nations are
impoverished because of billions of dollars voted in the annual
budgets for war supplies, for maintaining armies and navies,
for the scientific search for weapons more powerful than the
newest untried atomic super-bombs.
Reaction is on the march in many countries; Fascism still
exists in some, is being revived in others; Socialism has been
adopted by several nations; Communism has spread through¬
out a large part of Europe and Asia, and in the United States
for the first time in its history there is a growing doubt that
Capitalism is the best way of all, the well-advertised “American
Way of Life.** There is not only great doubt, but even greater
confusion in America.
At no time in history has there been such a need for infor¬
mation, and at no time in history has there been such an ex¬
change of charge and countercharge of suppression, distortion,
iron curtains, and the dissemination of falsehood.
The most powerful newspaper chain in America prints
in a score of cities, in a total of millions of copies every day,
the motto of its founder: “Give Light and the People Will
Find Their Own Way.’* This was the motto Scripps put on his
THE GENERAL WELFARE IN THE ATOMIC AGE 249
masthead, and it remains today an ironic reminder that his
living partner, Howard, has joined Hearst in becoming the
editorial antagonist of the labor unions, the New Deal, the
liberal and progressive movements in America which both
once sponsored.
The press, the magazines, the radio, the movies, are com¬
mercial “free” enterprises; they are not in business to give light
so that the people can find their own way. They are out for the
money.
Right or wrong, the present writer holds to his belief
that in a nation and in a world where the means of mass
communication are honest and free, when they function for the
general welfare instead of private profits, there will be a re¬
sulting general enlightenment, there will be progress, because
nothing will stop the march of an informed people.
APPENDIX 1.
THE 13 MOST POWERFUL FAMILIES IN AMERICA
(Editorial Note: The following table is from page 116,
Monograph 29, Temporary National Fxonomic Committee, In¬
vestigation of Concentration of Economic Power, 76th Con¬
gress, 3d Session. The monograph ran be had from the Super¬
intendent of Documents, Washington, D. C., for $2.,It deals
entirely with the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations.)
Table 6 —Identified stockholdings in 200 largest nonfinancial
corporations of 13 family-interest groups with holdings over
$50,000,000.
(Value of holdings in tliousands of dollars)
Corporations in which main holdings
Family Total are —
1. Ford 624,975 Ford Motor Co.
2. DuPont 573,690 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.,
United States Rubber Co.
3. Rockefeller 396,583 Standard Oil (N. J.) (Indiana) (Cali¬
fornia), Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.,
Inc.
4. Mellon 390,943 Gulf Oil Corp.; Aluminum Co. of
America, Koppers United Co.
5. McCormick 111,102 International Harvestei Co.
6. Hartford 105,702 A&P Tea Co.
7. Harkness 104,891 (Same as Rockefeller)
8. Duke 89,489 Duke Power Co., Aluminum Co., Lig¬
gett & Myers Tobacco Co.
9. Pew 75,628 Sun Oil Co.
10. Pitcairn 65,576 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
11. Clark 57,215 Singer Mfg. Co.
12. Reynolds 54,766 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
13. Kress 50,044 S. H. Kress & Co.
Total: $2,700,574,000.
“Three interest groups, all of the one-family type, stand out—
the duPont, Mellon, and Rockefeller groups. . . All three groups
represent large fortunes, as measured by the market value of the
stock held, as well as huge aggregations of economic power resting
upon control of large industrial corporations. . .
“The holdings of the three families—as well as those of any
other interested groups covered by the study—of course represented
251
252
1000 AMERICANS
only part of the total wealth of those groups. . . It is quite pos¬
sible that for some groups these outside investments had a larger
aggregate value than their identified stockholdings in the 200
largest corporations.
APPENDIX 2.
THE 12 SUPER RULERS OF AMERICAN INDUSTRY
Twelve billionaire corporations and their representatives in
the Special Conference Committee, the super ruling body of Amer¬
ican business. Source: Senate Civil Liberties report, part 45, page
16783.
American Telephone Sc Telegraph Co.: W. S. Gifford, presi¬
dent; E. F. Carter, vice-president, E. S. Bloom, president (Western
Electric Co.); W. A. Griffin, assistant vp.
Bethlehem Steel Co.: Eugene G. Grace, president; J. M. Lar¬
kin, vice-president.
E. I. DuPont de Nemours: Lammot duPont, president: Willis
F. Harrington, vice-president; William B. Foster, director of service
dept.
General Electric Co.: Owen D. Young, former chairman; W. S.
Burrows, vice-president; G. H. Pfeif, supervisor of personnel.
General Motors Corp.: Alfred P. Sloan jr., president; John L.
Pratt, vice-president, Donaldson Brown, vice-president.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.: E. J. Thomas, general super¬
intendent.
International Harvester Co.: A. A. Jones, asst, to vice presi¬
dent; George J. Kelday, manager of industrial relations.
Irving Trust Co.: Hairy E. Ward, president; Northrop Hol¬
brook, vice-president.
Standard Oil of N, J,: W. S. Farish, chairman; W. C. Teagle,
president.
U. S. Rubber Co.: L. D. Tompkins, vice-president; C. S. Ching,
director of industrial and public relations.
United States Steel Corporation.
Westinghouse Electric Sc Mfg. Co.: A. W. Robertson, chair¬
man; F. A. Merrick, vice chairman; W. G. Marshall, vice-president;
E. S. McClelland, director of personnel.
(Editorial Notes: With the exception of the Irving Trust
Co., all are members of the NAM.
The La Follette-Thomas report stated that this was a secret
organization. It met at the offices of Standard Oil, 30 Rocke-
appendices
253
feller Plaza, New York City. In 1947 Mr. Edward S. Cowdrick,
an industrial relations consultant with offices at that address,
stated that the SCC as such was no longer in existence but
admitted that virtually all the billionaire companies which had
comprised it were now his clients. Meetings were held, “some¬
times individually, sometimes as a group, but we are no longer
organized, if that distinction means anything,” Mr. Cowdrick
stated.
The Civil Liberties report stated that the 11 industrial
corporations employed more than 1,800,000 workers, paid
wages and salaries of $2,400,000,000, and had combined assets
of $13,500,000,000. The group met for “the purpose of formu¬
lating common labor-relations programs for all American in¬
dustry, and has led in systematizing the promotion of policies
consistently pursued by the NAM since its formation. “Not
only are most of the member corporations of the Special Con¬
ference Committee at once members of the inner controlling
group of the NAM and the leaders among American industrial
giants in their respective fields, but also they represent a secret
coalition in direct furtherance of the specific forms of company
union fathered by the Colorado Fuel Sc Iron Co.,” the Senate
report said.
In 1943, Prof. Robert A. Brady of Columbia University, in
a book entitled “Business as a System of Power,” described the
Special Conference Comm, in one of the few printed references
ever made to it. He wrote:
“The most important line of policies within the NAM, in
short, seems to be traceable directly or indirectly to this inside
clique within the inner councils of the organization. . . . No¬
where else is shown so clearly the dominating position in the
NAM of concerns such as those which are members of the
Special Conference Comm. Public relations techniques were
born, nurtured, and brought to flower within these ranks. . .
In 1947, speaking against the Taft-Hartley anti-labor bill.
Senator Thomas again exposed the Special Conference Com¬
mittee as a secret general staff for employers whose aim is to
destroy the labor movement. Again, as a decade earlier, the
254
1000 AMERICANS
entire American press suppressed the news. (See Congressional
Record, 1947, pages 4401-16.)
APPENDIX 3.
THE POWER OF THE BIG EIGHT BANKS
{Congressional Record, November 30, 1944, Senator Nor¬
ris’s speech, as introduced by Senator Langer.)
Mr. Norris. I desire at this point to give a list of eight leading
banks in New York City, as follows:
Bank of America National Association, Bank of Manhattan
Trust Co., Bankers’ Trust Co., Chase National Bank, Chemical
Bank & Trust Co., Guaranty Trust Co., National City Bank Co.,
New York Trust Co.
Almost any list of the large banks of Wall Street could be
taken and the result would be about the same, but I have selected
this list, because to take all the banks and gather the facts in regard
to them would mean a job that would require months of toil.
The 8 banks on the list I have given have 287 directorships in
insurance companies; they have 301 directorships in other banks.
That shows how they are interlocked with other banks. They have
521 directorships in public-utility companies. That shows how they
reach out over the country and handle the public-utility business
of the country. These 8 banks have 585 directorships in railroad,
steamship, and airplane transportation companies. So we cannot
eliminate or reduce an appropriation for airplanes without tread¬
ing on the toes of the money power of Wall Street.
These 8 banks—and they are only a part of the great combina¬
tion of wealth represented by banks in Wall Street, which are
operating through interlocking directorships—^have directorships in
846 manufacturing companies. So, there are 846 corporations en¬
gaged in all lines of manufacturing that these banks, either directly
or indirectly, control, because the man who controls or the men
who control the money of the country also control the country, as
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Thomas] so well said yesterday.
Let a combination of men control the finances of the United States,
and they control all the activities of all the people of the United
States. These 8 banks have 1,201 directorships in other corpora¬
tions, making a total of 3,741 directorships held by the 8 banks in
various corporations. . • .
Mr. Norris. Mr. President, what does all this show? It demon¬
strates very clearly, in my judgment, that the control of all the
business of the United States is drifting rapidly toward corpora-
appendices 255
tions. Especially when we consider the development and the ad¬
vance that has been made in this control, as shown by me a short
time ago, it demonstrates, it seems to me, that all of us soon will
be hired men, working for some corporation.
When we look over the public-utility field and see how the
house of Morgan is gradually and rapidly getting control, as shown
by the figures and the statistics I put into tlie Record, can we reach
any other conclusion than that any of these organizations, any of
these operating companies, any of these holding companies, will
find it impossible to do anything contrary to the wishes of the men
who control the money strings in Wall Street? In that case it has
almost reached the point now when it is one man, J. P, Morgan.
J. P. Morgan, with the assistance and cooperation of a few of
the interlocking corporations which reach all over the United States
in their influence, controls every railroad in the United States.
They control practically every public utility, they control literally
thousands of corporations, they control all of the large insurance
companies.
Mr. President, we are gradually reaching a time, if we have
not already reached that period, when the business of the country
is controlled by men who can be named on the fingers of one hand,
because those men control the money of the Nation, and that con¬
trol is growing at a rapid rate. There is only a comparatively small
part of it left for them to get, and when they control the money,
they control the banks, they control the manufacturing institutions,
they control the aviation companies, they control the insurance
companies, they control the publishing companies; and we have
had some remarkable instances of the control of the publishing
companies presented before a subcommittee of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
These corporations forget nothing. We had illustrations given
us where a magazine would start out on a particular line, but would
find itself called on the carpet by some one from one of these great
institutions. They were told what the policy must be. Absolute
failure stared them in the face unless they obeyed. Through the
control of advertising, which, incidentally, to a great extent, is
handled by corporations which this money trust controls, they con¬
trol the avenues of publicity.
Mr. President, the tramp on the street who munches a crust
of bread somebody has given him is very likely eating something
which came from a corporation controlled by this great Money
Trust. Bread is manufactured by corporations, and shipped all
over the country, and the price is kept up, while the price of wheat
goes down. We have to pay practically the same price for a loaf of
bread when wheat is 25 cents a bushel in the Western States, as we
paid when wheat was $2.50 a bushel. It is all controlled by cor¬
porations. The clothing we wear, the food we eat, the automobiles.
256
1000 AMERICANS
in the main, that we use, the gasoline and the oil we buy to operate
them, to a great extent are controlled by this financial center repre¬
sented by this spider. . . .
Mr. Norris. Of course, Mr. President, a beautiful theory can
be woven, and it can be said that if we get a big corporation that
covers everything we will be able to reduce the prices of products
to the consumers. But human nature is just the same now as it was
a hundred years ago. Give to a man the power, especially if he has
in his heart the greed that comes with great financial power as a
rule, and when he gets the power the consumer will not get any
benefit—the man will get it. When the power is all in the hands of
one or a few men, the consumer will be bled white. That has been
the lesson of history.
APPENDIX 4.
45 CORPORATIONS WITH MORE THAN
$1,000,000,000 IN ASSETS
Forty-five American business enterprises now are included in
the billion-dollar, assets class in spite of a sharp decline in resources
of the nation’s leading banks since the end of World War II, ac¬
cording to the copyrighted annual survey by United Press. Metro¬
politan Life Insurance Co., leader in assets since 1944, continues to
nead the list.
The billion-dollar companies and their assets are as follows:
Company
Metropolitan Life.$
Bell Telephone.
Prudential Ins.
Bank of America.
National City Bank .
Chase National .
Equitable Life.
New York Life .
Guaranty Trust.
Standard Oil (N. J.).
Manufacturers Trust .
Continental Ill. Bank.
Pennsylvania R. R.
First Natl. Chicago.
General Motors .
Northwestern Mutual.
John Hancock Mutual.
U. S. Steel.
Latest Assets
8,045,443,467
7,380,925,721
6,829,542,249
5,538,321,000
4,873,737,691
4,860,581,123
4,273,313,396
4,026,689,280
2,841,800,875
2.659.987.889
2.250.225.889
2,227,056,285
2,180,349,028
2,097,755,803
2,079,607,229
2,052,432,583
2,037,505,696
2,003,517,407
Dec. 31,1945
$ 7,561,997,270
6,765,557,026
6,359,281,870
5,626,063,927
5,434,372,600
6,092,600,648
3.849.438.783
3.814.176.784
3,813,507,042
2,531,808,387
2,693,184,469
2,826,963,072
2,223,731,246
2,474,512,923
1,813,885,559
2,019,054,746
1,837,622,237
1,890,768,775
appendices
257
Mutual Life N. Y. ...
N. Y. Central.
Security 1st National
Southern Pacific ....
Central Hanover ....
Travelers Ins.
Bankers Trust.
First National Boston
Consol. Edison.
Northwest Bancorp. .
E. I. duPont de N. ..
C. & S. Corp.
Aetna Life .
Chemical Bank .
Santa Fe Road.
Union Pacific.
Socony-Vacuum .
Baltimore & Ohio ...
Natl. Bank Detroit . .
Irving Trust.
First Bank Stk. Cp. ..
Marine Midland Cp.
Bank of Manhattan .
Massachusetts Mutual
Penn Mutual .
Mutual Benefit Life .
Cleveland Trust ....
1,845,769,521
1,698,490,561
1,659,169,327
1,624,401,763
1,613,528,102
1,589,220,051
1,486,679,439
1,444,796,245
1,356,101,046
1,265,000,000
1,263,797,827
1,258,004,793
1,247,466,207
1,238,076,886
1,218,572,341
1,206,682,734
1,135,165,509
1,158,971,371
1,120,474,473
1,105,777,671
1,104,198,507
1,092,157,661
1,087,398,746
1,084,443,467
1,070,105,857
1,069,057,670
1,053,716,069
1,800,758,756
1,736,143,217
1,736,143,217
1,685,942,471
1,972,323,270
1,512,224,247
1,921,945,613
1,704,193,331
1,323,687,070
1,380,633,781
1,204,921,184
1,205,243,639
1.152.901.151
1,637,503,776
1,246,835,971
1.287.117.897
1,075,776,859
1,166,926,644
1,326,506,470
1.428.354.898
1,204,564,383
1.218.727.151
1,359,074,439
1,014,155,467
1,016,977,550
1,006,512,914
1,111,814,791
Totals
$103,456,016,995 $107,065,003,625
—(Source: UP annual dispatch. New York Herald Tribune,
July 2, 1947.)
The forty-five companies composing the “club” today are more
than twice the number of billion-dollar institutions in the United
States in the so-callcd boom year of 1929. Newcomers this year are
First Bank Stock Corp., Minneapolis, and Massachusetts Mutua
Life, Springfield, Mass.
[Editorial Note: The Herald Tribune omitted in its con¬
cluding paragraph of the copyright UP dispatch, the following
phrase: “Then [in the so called boom year of 1929] only 2C
companies had assets of one billion or more, and in 1939, jus
prior to World War II, there were but 28 concerns.” Seventeer
corporations entered the billionaire class during the Seconc
World War.)
258
1000 AMERICANS
APPENDIX 5.
NOTED NAMES ON THE MORGAN
“PREFERRED LIST”
Calvin Coolidge.
Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.
John J. Pershing.
Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors, the DuPont Empire and the
NAM.
Richard B. Mellon of Alcoa and the Mellon Bank.
Owen D. Young, chief writer of the Dawes Plan for German
reparations.
Walter S. Gifford of American Telephone and Telegraph Co.
Myron C. Taylor of United States Steel; FDR's and Truman's spe¬
cial envoy to the Vatican; endorser of Mussolini and fascism.
Walter C. Teagle, of Standard Oil.
Sosthenes Behn of International Telephone and Telegraph Co.
Marshall Field.
Charles E. Mitchell, banker.
John W. Davis, Morgan attorney and one time candidate for Presi¬
dent of the United States; also author of the directive of the
Dies Un-American Committee.
William Gibbs McAdoo, later Senator, and member of the com¬
mittee which investigated the Morgan company.
Newton D. Baker, who tried to write a whitewash of the Morgan
firm in relation to the war.
Charles D. Hilles, Republican Party national committeeman from
New York.
Robert E. Olds, former Under Secretary of State, the man who
planted a fake story with the Associated Press aimed to stir
up war with Mexico, in aid of the U. S. oil interests—see
Freedom of the Press, p. 176.
William H. Woodin, later Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury.
Bernard M. Baruch.
Norman H. Davis, spokesman for the Roosevelt administration
abroad.
John J. Raskob, former chairman of the Democratic National Com¬
mittee, official of the DuPont and General Motors corporations.
O. P. Van Sweringen, the railroad man.
F. L. Carlisle, power and light.
P. A. S. Franklin, head of Morgan-controlled ocean shipping.
Silas H. Strawn, Henry Machold, Seward Prosser, Arthur Woods,
F. H. Ecker, a life insurance firm official, J. R. Nutt, Charles
Francis Adams, later Secretary of the Navy.
appendices
259
APPENDIX 6.
J. ?• MORGAN & CO. AND THE ST. LAWRENCE
SEAWAY
J. P. Morgan & Co.
Wall Street, corner Broad, New York
Drcxel & Co., Philadelphia
Morgan, Grenfell & Co., London
Morgan & Cie, Paris
New York, February 5, 1934
Dear Senator La Follette:
My attention has been called to a speech which you made . . .
pending treaty for the St. Lawrence seaway, and specifically to
certain erroneous statements with reference to the firm of J. P.
Morgan & Co. Ordinarily we do not feel called on to reply to
unfounded or incorrect statements regarding this firm. When, how¬
ever, a statesman of your position makes such statements, even
though they may be based upon this information furnished to you,
we feel warranted in calling them to your attention.
In the course of your remarks you say: “J. P. Morgan 8c Co,
and their allied interests are seeking to destroy this administration
and they are seeking to prevent the ratification of this treaty’', etc.
Both these statements are absolutely without foundation. . . ,
On September 18, 1929 this firm issued a public statement,
which had wide currency, declaring its complete aloofness from any
position as to the St. Lawrence River project. . . .
Permit us to make clear again with all emphasis that we have
not directly or indirectly attempted to influence in one way or the
other ratification of the St. Lawrence Treaty or the character and
manner of the proposed St. Lawrence power development. . . .
Very truly yours,
Thomas W. Lamont
260
1000 AMERICANS
APPENDIX 7.
J. P. MORGAN Sc CO. AND PUBLIC POWER
(Congressional Record, November 30, 1944. Letter from
Senator La Follette to Thomas W. Lamont, inserted in speech
by Senator Langer.)
Mr. Thomas W. Lamont,
J. P, Morgan & Co,, New York City,
Dear Mr. Lamont: I shall be pleased to place your letter of
February 5 on behalt of J. P. Morgan 8c Co. in the Congressional
Record in response to your request. . . .
The entire record supports the conclusion that corporations
and agencies in which the influence of J. P. Morgan Sc Co. is notori¬
ous have been using every resource to block public development of
St. Lawrence power in the interest of lower electric rates.
If the St. Lawrence Treaty is defeated, it will, in my opinion,
be due largely to the false propaganda which has been directed for
nearly 2 years against this project, and to the opposition fomented
by utility interests affiliated with J. P. Morgan & Co. . . ,
1 o assert that J. P. Morgan & Co., with its vast utility holdings
and enormous stake in the maintenance and excessive rates in the
greatest market for power and electricity in the world, is indifferent
to a public power project larger than Muscle Shoals and Boulder
Dam combined is to VdK the credulity of the Senate and the public
and to belie the public records of both State and Federal Govern¬
ments.
You state that no member of the firm of J. P. Morgan 8c Co.
has opposed the public power and navigation project covered by
the treaty.
Every Member of the United States Senate has received numer¬
ous printed statements demanding the defeat of the treaty, mailed
at frequent intervals in the last 2 years by the Chamber of Com¬
merce of the State of New York.
J. P. Morgan and 12 of his partners, including yourself, were
listed as members of this chamber at the time it initiated the propa¬
ganda referred to.
The treasurer of the organization, who collected the funds and
disbursed the expenditures for this campaign against the treaty, is
Junius S. Morgan, Jr., the son of the head of the firm. Mr. Morgan
still holds the office of treasurer today.
I have made an analysis of the published roster of the member¬
ship of the chamber for 1932, when the effort to defeat the treaty
appendices 261
began. With data derived from standard financial manuals and
directories, this analysis shows:
1. The 13 members of the firm of J. P. Morgan Sc Co. listed as
members of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York
are: J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont, Henry S. Morgan,
Junius S. Morgan, Jr., Thomas S. Lamont, Henry P. Davison, E. T.
Stotesbury, Charles Steele, Thomas Cochran, R. C. Leffingwell,
Harold Stanley, George Whitney, and Francis D. Bartow.
2. Less than 10 percent of the membership show an address
outside of New York City. It includes 510 bankers and 71 railroad
and utility directors and officials. Of the 510 bankers, 64 are also
directors of railroad or electric-power corporations.
3. Power and public-utility interests are represented in the list
by Floyd L. Carlisle, chairman of the boards of the Niagara Hud¬
son Power Corporation, the Consolidated Gas Co. of New York,
and the New York Edison Co.; Harold Stanley, a member of the
firm of J. P. Morgan Sc Co. and director of the Niagara Hudson,
the United Corporation, and the United Gas Improvement Co.;
E. T. Stotesbury, a Morgan partner and director of the United
Gas Improvement Co.; and George Whitney, a Morgan partner and
director of Consolidated Gas.
4. Junius S. Morgan, Jr., of J. P. Morgan 8c Co., is listed as
treasurer of the chamber.
On November 18, 1932, a representative of the chamber ap¬
peared before the Borah subcommittee of the Committee on For¬
eign Relations and presented an elaborate report, together with a
“summary and resolutions," denouncing both the power and navi¬
gation projects and demanding the rejection of the St. Lawrence
Treaty. . . .
I submit that if the 13 partners of J. P. Morgan 8c Co. who
were members of the chamber on October 6, 1932, have been, as
you state, indifferent to the action of the Senate on the treaty, their
protest should not be directed to a Senator but to the officers of the
chamber who caused such attacks against the treaty to be trans¬
mitted to Members of the Senate.
The fact is that the report and resolutions adopted on October
6, 1932, incorporated the misstatements, exaggerations, and half-
truths which have since been chiefly relied upon and most widely
circulated in the effort to defeat the treaty.
You and I, Mr. Lamont, do not need to quibble over terms.
When I say that J. P. Morgan 8c Co. and its partners have con¬
sistently opposed everything that is vital about this great public-
power project I do not mean that either Mr. Morgan or you have
gone about making speeches against it or that you have gone up to
Albany or down to Washington to buttonhole legislators and lobby
against bills which you feel jeopardize your strangle hold on the
business of distributing electric energy to the people of New York
and other States.
262
1000 AMERICANS
It is through your innumerable agents, like this man Machold,
that your influence is as effectively exerted as if you were operating
in person. You will perhaps recall the recent address at Utica,
December 8, 1933, of W. Kingsland Macy, a successor of Machold as
chairman of the State Republican Committee. He said:
“It is intolerable that the invisible government set up by Mr.
Machold in Albany during the legislative sessions, operating
through his control of the clerkship under Mr. Hammond, manipu¬
lating chairmanships and directing legislation, should be permitted
to continue.
“The trouble is not that Mr. Machold believes in the private
ownership of public utilities but that he apparently believes in the
private ownership of the State government.” . . .
Our flowing streams are peculiarly adaptable to development
and use for the public benefit. In his avowed purpose of removing
credit, production, and transportation from selfish exploitation, the
President has wisely insisted upon the public development of water
power under terms which will insure to every home its maximum
benefits in cheap and increased use of current and the relief of
needless drudgery—in short, a richer life for the average American
family.
If American financiers remain hostile to such broad national
purposes, then I seriously doubt whether they can service as a use¬
ful instrumentality of society when we succeed in eradicating the
greed and ignorance that produced the depression.
You will recall the words of President Roosevelt in his in¬
augural address of March 4, 1933.
“Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes
in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers
of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own
stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their fail¬
ure and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers
stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the
hearts and minds of men. . . .
“The money changers have fled from their high seats in the
temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the
ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent
to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary
profit.”
The St. Lawrence Treaty will, in my opinion, be ratified. If
the withdrawal of further opposition by members of your firm,
even at this belated hour, is made effective, it will unquestionably
be welcomed by the American people.
Very truly yours,
“Robert M. La Follette, Jr.
APPENDICES
26S
APPENDIX 8.
THE PAGE CABLE
(Ambassador Walter Hines Page’s cable to President Wil¬
son suggesting America declare war on Germany, and mention¬
ing the position of the House of Morgan and the Allied loans.)
March 5, 1917.
To THE PRESIDENT
“The inquiries which I have made here about financial conditions
disclose an international situation which is most alarming to the
financial and industrial outlook of the United States. England has
not only to pay her own war bills, but is obliged to finance her
Allies as well. Up to the present time she has done these tasks out
of her own capital. But she cannot continue her present extensive
purchases in the United States without shipping gold as payment
for them, and there are two reasons why she cannot make large
shipments of gold. In the first place, both England and France
must keep the larger part of the gold they have to maintain issues
of their paper at par; and in the second place, the German U-boat
has made the shipping of gold a dangerous procedure even if they
had it to ship. There is therefore a pressing danger that the Franco-
American exchange will be greatly disturbed; the inevitable conse¬
quences will be that orders by all the Allied governments will be
reduced to the lowest possible amount and that trans-Atlantic trade
will practically come to an end. The result of such a stoppage will
be a panic in the United States. The world will be divided into two
hemispheres, one of them, our own, will have the gold and the
commodities: the other. Great Britain and Europe, will need these
commodities, but it will have no money with which to pay for
them. Moreover, it will have practically no commodities of its
own to exchange for them. The financial and commercial result
will be almost as bad for the United States as for Europe. We shall
soon reach this condition unless we take quick action to prevent it.
Great Britain and France must have a credit in the United States
which will be large enough to prevent the collapse of world trade
and the whole financial structure of Europe.
“If the United States declare war against Germany, the great¬
est help we could give Great Britain and the Allies would be such
credit. If we should adopt this policy, an excellent plan would be
for our government to make a large investment in a Franco-British
loan. Another plan would be to guarantee such a loan. A great
advantage would be that all the money would be kept in the
264
1000 AMERICANS
United States. We could keep on with our trade and increase it,
till the war ends, and after the war Europe would purchase food
* and enormous supply of materials with which to reequip her peace
industries. We should thus reap the profit of an uninterrupted
and perhaps an enlarging trade over a number of years and we
should hold their securities in payment.
“On the other hand, if we keep nearly all the gold and Europe
cannot pay for reestablishing its economic life, there may be a
world wide panic for an indefinite period.
“Of course we cannot extend such a credit unless we go to war
with Germany. But is there no way in which our government might
immediately and indirectly help the establishment in the United
States of a large Franco-British credit without violating armed
neutrality? I do not know enough about our own reserve bank law
to form an opinion. But these banks would avert such a danger
if they were to establish such a credit. Danger for us is more real
and imminent, I think, than the public on either side of the At¬
lantic understands. If it be not averted before its manifestations
become apparent, it will then be too late to save the day.
“The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has
gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for tlie
British and French governments. The financial necessities of the
Allies are too great and urgent for any private agency to handle,
for every such agency has to encounter business rivalries and sec¬
tional antagonisms.
“It is not improbable that the only way of maintaining our
present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by de¬
claring war on Germany. The submarine has added the last item
to the danger of a financial world crash. There is now an uncer¬
tainty about our being drawn into the war; no more considerable
credits can be privately placed in the United States. In the mean¬
time a collapse may come.”
(Signed) (Walter Hines) PAGE
(U. S. State Department, Foreign Publications, 1917, supplement 2,
Vol. 1, pp. 516-8.)
(Report of Lawrence Brown—New Republic)
“The full text of this (the Page) cablegram was released to the
public by the Nye Committee on December 14, 1934. The United
Press put the text of the cable into its munitions story of that day.
So far as we can learn the Associated Press, International News
Service and Universal Service did not. We have examined some
twenty leading papers of the country, both in New York City and
elsewhere, and find the following interesting facts: Only four of
these papers carried the text of the cable. The New York Post, the
APPENDICES 265
New York World-Telegram, the Louimlle Courier-Journal and the
Pittsburgh Press did so. The Cleveland Plain Dealer carried the
U.P. munitions story, but, in the edition that we examined, cut out
all mention of the Page message. The New York Tribune printed
a denial that the Nye Committee would investigate the cable but
did not print the cable itself. A number of other papers printed
a denial of an investigation of Morgan's, but were careful, even in
the denial, not to mention the existence of the cable. Is this the
freedom of the press about which the publishers have lately been
so solicitous?"
APPENDIX 9.
PRESIDENT WILSON ON THE CAUSES OF
WORLD WAR I
(From a. speech delivered in St. Louis, September 5, 1919.
Reprinted from the Congressional Record, Sept. 8, 1919, page
5006; St. Louis Globe Democrat, Sept. 6, 1919.)
Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman-—^
let me say is there any child here—who does not know that the
seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial
rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished
took place was that Germany was afraid her commercial rivals
were going to get the better of her, and the reason why some na¬
tions went into the war against Germany was that they thought
Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed
of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred, was hot suc¬
cessful commercial and industrial rivalry,
(The next paragraph describes the German dismantling of
the Belgian industrial plant and the destruction of machinery
which could not be moved into Germany.)
This war was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a.
political war.
266
1000 AMERICANS
APPENDIX 10.
AMERICA’S WORST NEWSPAPERS
(Ccindensed from the table published by Leo C. Rosten in
his The Washington Correspondents, Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Reprinted by permission.)
Ten Newspapers Considered “Least Fair and Reliable" by
93 Washington Correspondents
paper
1st choice 2nd choice
3rd choice
points
Hearst Newspapers (*)
59
20
8
714
Chicago Tribune
24
37
10
455
Los Angeles Times
2
7
16
103
ScrippsTIoward (**)
4
5
4
77
Denver Post
0
4
6
38
N. Y, Herald Tribune
0
4
4
32
Washington Post
2
1
2
31
Phila. Record
0
3
5
30
Daily Worker (N. Y.)
1
1
2
21
Phila. Inquirer
1
1
2
21
(*) Editorial note: Some replies merely said “Hearst"; others
named Hearst paptis. Best known Hearst papers, considered the
worst in America, :ue: New York Journal-American, New York
Mirror, Chicago Herald-American, San Francisco Examiner, Los
Angeles Examiner, Detioit Times*
(♦*) Biggest of the Scripps-Howard papers, which rank fourth
on list of America’s worst, are: New York World-Telegram, Cleve¬
land Press, Pittsburgh Press, Denver News, Washington News, San
Francisco News, Indianapolis Times.
APPENDIX 11.
DuPONT INFLUENCE IN THE AMERICAN PRESS
(The following testimony and documents are from the
Munitions Hearings; they concern the plan of the DuPonts to
plant a propaganda campaign for the use of poison gas in war¬
time. Gas was held to be more humane than other weapons,
but public opinion was against it. The DuPonts, according to
appendices 267
testimony, sent their agent, Charles K. Weston, to Paris, to use
the press to change public opinion.)
(1) Letter from Weston dated Dec. 10, 1920 to DuPonts:
My mission seems to be going fairly well; I have met a number
of our American newspaper correspondents, and have I think suc¬
ceeded in selling them our ideas. One cannot tell of course until
the results begin to appear in American newspapers.
The correspondents in Paris report to the offices here, so it is
apparent that if the men in London get the right angle, it will be
wonderfully helpful.
In Paris I shall devote my energy very largely to bringing the
correspondents in contact more closely with the American sources
of news, at the same time trying to give them the proper angle so
that they will appreciate the importance of the news.
—(Source: Munitions Hearings, Part 11, Dec. 6, 7, 10, 1934.)
(2) Letter to Weston from F. J. Byrne, of DuPont firm:
Recently there have appeared a number of dispatches in the
American papers along the lines that are very desirable to us.
These look to me as if they have been cabled to this country as a
result of your visit to the other side:
1) The Boston Transcript of Dec. 21, 1920, carried a fine story
on “Britain Foresees Gas Warfare," dated from London.
2) The Washington Herald had a cable dispatch written by
Wythe Williams from Paris about German dye plots against the
US. This was taken up by the Manufacturers Record and made the
subject of a splendid full page editorial.
3) The Evening Bulletin of Philadelphia had a dispatch from
London talking about the importance of British action passing the
dye bill and its relation to American affairs.
4) The Public Ledger of Jan. 8, 1921, had a dispatch from
Paris about “Germany Sets Dye Trade Trap."
These dispatches are syndicated in many cases to appear in dif¬
ferent places throughout the country, so that the publicity on these
four items I mentioned must have been very considerable. (Muni¬
tions Hearings, Part 11, Exhibit 928, page 2581).
(3) Statement addressed to Senators by Stephen Raushenbush, sec'y
of Munitions Investigation:
I call your attention to paragraph 3, as to the matter of control
of the press. He (Weston, in another letter, exhibit 926) speaks of
having arranged certain articles to come out in France. He goes and
talks with some prominent people there and gets news stories which
seem to be calculated to have a very definite effect on public
opinion here. (Munitions Hearings, page 2416).
268
1000 AMERICANS
(To Weston) You take credit ... for a story in the Boston
Transcript . . . ‘‘Britain.Foresees Gas Warfare/* a story by Wythe
Williams from Paris about German dye plots against the US; the
Evening Bulletin of Phila a dispatch . . . and the Public Ledger,
a dispatch from Paris. . . . (Ex 928).
Raushenbush: You had to send a man ... to keep the pot
boiling . . . with dispatches ... to make the American people
see the importance of favoring your particular industry?
Weston: That is exactly what we were after.
(4) Letter from Weston to Meade, of DuPont firm:
Guy Martin and the articles which he wrote for the Paris edi¬
tions of the New York Herald {Tribune) and the Chicago Tribune
throw an interesting sidelight on my visit. . , . They were written
by Ben A. (sic) Raleigh, an old newspaper acquaintance whom I left
on guard in Paris. He assumed the name of Guy Martin for publi¬
cation purposes. ... He as my agent will carry out any sugges¬
tion. (Munitions Hearings, exhibit 929).
(5) Report from Ben K. Raleigh, representative of DuPonts, ap¬
pointed by Weston, publicity head of the firm, to deal with the
newspapers and reporters in Paris. Dated Jan. 25, 1921:
The Associated Press carried a cable on the substance of an
interview I had with Prof Blondell. . . . The Public Ledger Syn¬
dicate, and the Chicago Tribune Syndicate papers are to be sup¬
plied with a story I have arranged which will point out that the
French Govt, upon confidential information from its investigators
in Germany regarding a coming great German dump of goods, will
further increase its coefficient tariff rates on dyestuffs, chemicals,
etc. . . . This story should bring out some editorials in the Ameri¬
can press, and it might be possible to have it suggested to some of
the newspapers that editorial treatment of the cable would be of
public service.
Dr. Jacoby . . . showed me yesterday a clipping from one of
the Ledger Syndicate newspapers • • . the article I supplied.
I sent you a cable yesterday notifying you of the coming ap¬
pearance of the stories for the Public Ledger Syndicate and the
Chicago Tribune papers. I hope to get some more material over
the Associated Press wires shortly. . . . [Ed. note: the AP is the
most powerful news service in America, and is supposed to be
absolutely free of controls. It has been used by the corporations,
banks, special interests, anti-labor outfits, etc., as numerous Con¬
gressional investigations have shown. It was recently ordered to
stop monopolistic practices.]
By the way, I suppose that an occasional luncheon, etc., in the
furtherance of the project would not be objected to, but I should
like authorization. In this case Dr. Chapin paid for the lunch, but
APPENDICES
269
I want to be in a position to come back at him and the other
people who we want to cultivate, including such men as (Wythe)
Williams of the Public Ledger, Roberts [then head] of the Asso¬
ciated Press . . . Floyd Gibbons of the (Chicago) Tribune. . . .
Carl Ackerman [now head of the School of Journalism, Co¬
lumbia University], who dropped into the Ledger Bureau while I
was there, over on a visit from London, requested me to remem¬
ber him to you. . . .
(Munitions Hearings, part II, Ex. 926, pp. 2578-80.)
APPENDIX 12.
THE NEWSPAPER PRESS CONTROLS THE
MAJORITY OF RADIO STATIONS
Wattage
NUMBER OF STATIONS OWNED
OR CONTROLLED BY NEWS¬
PAPER PUBLISHERS
Total
number
of
stations
in
United
States
Percentage
of total
owned or
controlled
by
news-
papers
Directly
Indirectly
Total
50,000
11
33
44
53
83.0
5,000 or 20,000
66
89
155
225
68.9
1,000 or 2,500
48
60
108
162
66.7
200 or 500
113
88
201
446
45.1
Total
238
270
508
886
I 57.3
Figures compiled from unpublished records of the Federal
Communications Commission. —Guild Reporter, July 26, 1946.
270
1000 AMERICANS
APPENDIX 13.
THE CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AND SUBSIDIARIES
December 31, 1941
SECURITIES
General Investment Account
Book Value
Market Value
Government Bonds
$ 4,127,900.00
$ 4,131,637.73
State and Municipal Bonds
2,050,755.07
2,188,155.00
Canadian Bonds
82,491.25
76,218.75
Industrial Bonds
164,567.50
164,140.00
Railroad and Utility Bonds
146,602.03
139,612.50
Bank and Insurance Stocks
613,498.30
382,681.75
Utility Preferred Stocks
1,338,231.61
1,333,372.00
Utility Common Stocks
Industrial Preferred and
180,813.47
147,487.50
Common Stocks
8,270,106.56
8,137,972.29
Guaranteed Railroad Stocks
821,592.63
$17,796,558.42
877,588.25
$17,578,865.77
APPENDIX 14.
TIME OWNERSHIP
Statement of the Ownership, Management, Circulation, Etc., Re¬
quired By The Act of Congress of March 3, 1933.
Of Time, The Weekly Newsmagazine, published weekly at
Chicago, Illinois, for October 1, 1935.
State of New York
County of New York
2. That the owner is: (If owned by a corporation, its name and
address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names
and addresses ot stockholders owning or holding one per cent or
more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the
names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If
owned by a firm, company, or other unincorporated concern, its
name and address, as well as those of each individual member,
must be given) Time Incorporated, 135 East 42nd St., New York,
N. Y.:
appendices
271
Henry P. Davison, 23 Wall St., New York, N. Y.
F. DuSossoit Duke, Greens Farms, Vt.
Mimi B. Durant, 139 East 79th St., New York, N. Y.
General Publishing Corporation (Heniy R. Luce) 15 Exchange
Place, Jersey City, N. J.
William V. Griffin, 140 Cedar St., New York, N. Y.
Crowell Hadden III, Trustee, Estate of Briton Hadden, 40 Wall
St., New York, N. Y.
Edith H. Harkness, 4 East 60th St., New York, N. Y.
William H. Harkness, 654 Madison Avc., New York, N. Y.
Louise H. Ingalls, 1657 Union Trust Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio
Robert L. Johnson, 135 East 42nd St., New York, N. Y.
Margaret Zerbe Larsen, 435 East 42nd St., New kork, N. Y.
Wilton Lloyd-Smith, 63 Wall St., New York, N. Y.
Henry R. Luce, 135 East 42nd St., New York, N. Y.
John S. Martin, 135 East 42nd St., New York, N. Y.
Samuel W. Meek Jr., 420 Lexington Ave., New York, N. Y*
3. That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and other secur¬
ity holders owning or holding 1 per cent or more of total amount of
bonds, mortgages, or other securities are: (If these are none, sa
state). None.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of September,.
1935.
(Seal) Herbert E. Mahoney.
(My commission expires March 30, 1936.)
APPENDIX 15.
THE PRESS IN CHAINS
Five press lords—Hearst, Howard, McCormick, Patterson and
Knight—own tlie most powerful segment of the
American Press.
Town
Paper
Owner
Circulation^
Akron
Beacon-Journal
Knight
131,246
Albuquerque
Tribune
Scripps-Howard
16,496
Albany
Times-Uniou
Hearst
50,684
Birmingham
Post
Scripps-Howard
75,680
Boston
Record
Hearst
390,966
Boston
American
Hearst
207,203
Boston
Advertiser
Hearst
660,440
Baltimore
News-Post
Hearst
220,127
Baltimore
American
Hearst
323,859
Chicago
Daily News
Knight
491,046
Chicago
Herald-American
Hearst
531,309
272
1000 AMERICANS
Town
Paper
Owner
Circulation*
Chicago
Tribune
McCormick
1,076,045
Cincinnati
Post
Howard
155,188
Cleveland
Press
Howard
264,589
Columbus
Citizen
Howard
83,135
Detroit
Free Press
Knight
417,336
Detroit
Times
Hearst
405,887
Denver
Rocky Mt. News
Howard
80,415
El Paso
Herald-Post
Howard
29,350
Evansville
Press
Howard
41,937
Fort Worth
Press
Howard
45,086
Houston
Press
Howard
82,936
Indianapolis
Times
Howard
94,886
Los Angeles
Examiner
Hearst
379,746
Los Angeles
Herald-Express
Hearst
404,461
Kentucky
Post (Cinn. Post)
Howard
Knoxville
News-Sentinel
Howard
101,303
Memphis
Press-Scimitar
Howard
128,343
Memphis
Commercial-Appeal
Howard
167,987
Miami
Herald
Knight
131,353
Milwaukee
Sentinel
Hearst
158,266
New York
Daily News
Patterson
2,354,444
(Sunday.
4,599,524)
New York
Mirror
Hearst
1,006,279
New York
J our nal-American
Hearst
673,708
New York
World-T elegram
Howard
383,454
Oakland
Post-Enquirer
Hearst
73,786
Pittsburgh
Sun-Felegraph
Hearst
198,985
Pittsburgh
Press
Howard
251,572
San Antonio
Light
Hearst
74,086
San Francisco
Call-Bulletin
Hearst
169,987
San Francisco
Examiner
Hearst
233,623
San Francisco
News
Howard
143,489
Seattle
Post-Intelligencer
Hearst
164,199
Washington
Times-Herald
Mrs. E. Patterson
262,216
Washington
News
Howard
109,694
• Editor and Publisher, Yearbook, 1947.
APPENDICES
27 $
APPENDIX 17.
CONTROL OF THE N.A.M.
76th Congress, 1st session, SENATE Report No. 6, part 6.
Violations of Free Speech and Rights of Labor.
Labor Policies of Employers’ Associations.
Part III. The N. A. M.
page 47
Section 2. Control of the N. A. M.
The reorganization described in section 1 above brought a new
leadership into the affairs of the N. A. M. . . . Large concerns were
more frequently represented on the directorate. Nationally recog¬
nized corporations became active in the affairs of the associations.
The available information indicates that Charles R. Hood,
president of the American Rolling Mill Co.; Robert B. Henderson,
president of the Pacific Portland Cement Co.; Robert L. Lund,
president of the Lambert Pharmacal Co., were in the original group
which planned and executed the reorganization of the National
Association of Manufacturers. This committee is not informed
of the members of the “Brass Hats” or the full list of industrial
and financial leaders who, in 1933, conceived of a program of
“business salvation” and selected the National Association of Manu¬
facturers to carry it out. It is known, however, that a large group
of other leading businessmen joined the original sponsors in the
practical execution of the plans formulated in 1933. (12) (Footnote
12 follows)
The men who have been active in the association, some since
1933, others since 1934-35, as large contributors, directors, officers,
or as members of public relations committee or the National In¬
dustrial Information committee, are the following:
Ernest T. Weir, National Steel Corporations;
Colby M. Chester, chairman of board. General Foods Corp.
Harry A. Bullis, vice president. General Mills Co. of Ohio;
Lammot duPont, president, R. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.;
Edgar M. Queeny, president, Mansanto Chemical Co.;
C. L. Bardo of the New York Shipbuilding Corp.;
W. T. Holiday, president. Standard Oil Co. of Ohio;
F. A. Merrici, president, Westinghouse Electric & Manufactur¬
ing Co.;
W. B. Bell, president, American Cyanamid Co.;
George H. Houston, president, Baldwin Locomotive Works;
F. N. Bard of the Barco Manufacturing Co.;
274
1000 AMERICANS
C. S. Davis, president, Borg-Warner Corporation; also former
president of the United States Chamber of Commerce.
S. Bayard Colgate, president, Colgate Palmolive-Peet Co.;
W. D. Fuller, president, Curtis Publishing Co.;
F. W. Lovejoy, president, Eastman Kodak Co.;
Russell Grinnell, president. General Fire Extinguisher Co.;
O. E. Braitmayer, vice president. International Business Ma¬
chines Corp.;
Walter J. Kohler of Kohler Co.;
John E. Edgerton of Lebanon Woolen Mills;
William B. Warner, president, McCall Corporation.
George W. Merck, president, Merck k Co.;
George McNeir, chairman, Mohawk Carpet Mills;
C. C. Carlton, secretary. Motor Wheel Corporation;
H. L. Ferguson, president, Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry
Dock Corp.
W. H. Taylor, president, Philadelphia Electric Co.
APPENDIX 18.
INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE
Table 7. —Companies represented on the board of directors of
National Association of Manufacturers sometime during 1933-37,
which used labor-espionage service and/or industrial munitions.
Name of company (small
CAPS indicate large con¬
tributors of National Asso¬
ciation of Manufacturers) Detective agencies used
AMERICAN CAN CO.
AMERICAN ROLLING MILL
CO.
AMERICAN SMELTING 8c
REFINING CO.
REVERE COPPER 8c BRASS
Corporations Auxiliary,
Burns, Pinkerton
Corporations Auxiliary
Pinkerton
National Metal Trades
CO.
Ames Baldwin Wyoming
Co.
Munitions
Purchased
Amount
$2,817.16
605.60
APPENDICES
275
4,470.4S
ANACONDA COPPER MINING
CO.
Anaconda Wire & Cable
THE BALDWIN LOCOMOTIVE
WORKS
BENDIX AVIATION CORPORA¬
TION
Bibb Manufacturing Co.
CLARK THREAD CO.
CONGOLEUM-NAIRN, INC.
CRANE CO.
CURTIS PUBLISHING CO.
Detroit Steel Castings Co.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS
8c CO.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
B. F. GOODRICH CO.
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
HOOKER ELECTROCHEMICAL
CO.
Hughes Tool Co.
Illinois Tool Works
LINK-BELT CO.
JOHN MORRELL & CO.
MOTOR WHEEL CORPORA¬
TION
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORA¬
TION
Weirton Steel Co.
Great Lakes Steel Cor¬
poration
NEW YORK SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS
CO.
REMINGTON RAND, INC.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORA¬
TION
STANDARD OIL CO. OF OHIO
STEW ART-WARNER CORPORA¬
TION
SUN OIL CO.
UNITED GAS IMPROVEMENT
CO.
Corporations Auxiliary
Pinkerton, Corporations
Auxiliary
Railway Audit
Railway Audit
Pinkerton
Corporations Auxiliary
Pinkerton
Corporations Auxiliary
Pinkerton
Corporations Auxiliary,
National Corporation
Service, Pinkerton
National Corporation
Service
Pinkerton
Pinkerton
National Metal Trades
National Metal Trades
Pinkerton
Corporations Auxiliary
Central Industrial Service
Pinkerton
Corporations Auxiliary
Bergoff, Burns, Railway Au¬
dit, Foster's, Cal Crim.
National Metal Trades
4,866.47
1,365.12
366.74
1,944.49
7,740.60
653.38
1,147.54
11,778.17
307.20
484.15
3,151.40
372.50
79,712.42
809.60
2,431.22
276
1000 AMERICANS
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
CO.
WHEELING STEEL CORPORA¬
TION
THE YALE & TOWNE MANU¬
FACTURING CO.
Pinkerton, Burns, Railway
Audit
National Corporation,
Railway Audit, Cor¬
porations Auxiliary
National Metal Tracies
408.00
303.75
—(Source: N.A.M. Investigation)
APPENDIX 19.
N.A.M. PRESS RELATIONS
{Editorial Note: A large part of the La Follette Commit¬
tee’s expose of the N.A.M. is devoted to corruption of the
press.)
D. Memorandum on Community Public Information Programs to
Combat Radical Tendencies and Present the Constructive
Stoty of Industry, April, 1937
Now, more than ever before, strikes are being won or lost in
the newspapers and over the radio. The swing of public opinion
has always been a major factor in labor disputes, but with the
settlement of strikes being thrown more and more into the laps
of public officials, the question of public opinion becomes of
greater importance. For it is public opinion—what the voters
think—that moves those elected to action along one course or
another. . . .
V. Possible Activities
A. Newspapers
1. Get one paper to develop its own series of stories on
growth of Smithtown industries, how they have developed,
their payrolls, their service to the community, their taxes,
etc. Your Public Relations man would cooperate in getting
proper material.
2. Get another paper to carry a series of stories and pic¬
tures of industrial and business men, with the accent on
those who have either started at the bottom and become
executives of big companies, or who started their own com¬
panies on a shoestring and became big.
appendices 277
4. Have Special Committee invite editors to lunch on
occasions.
B. Radio
1. Much the same as with newspapers, get one station
to carry a series telling about various Smithtown industries.
This might be done by speeches, or the station might be
propositioned on letting a local amateur dramatic group
dramatize a series of playlets presenting the story of Smith-
town industries.
C. Speakers Corps
1. Organize group of perhaps 25 speakers drawn from
all walks of life as ministers, lawyers, etc.
D. Schools
1. See that school libraries have material available for
reading and research presenting our viewpoint. Same for
public libraries, all of whom should be contacted to find out
what type of material they might need that could be pro¬
vided.
4. Where the schools have motion picture machines,
arrange to have pictures produced by Council shown and
keep abreast of other pictures available for this purpose.
For instance, picture now out by Iron and Steel Institute.
G. Foreign Language Groups
1. This is important. Industry, or even the government
has never bothered to tell these people what America is all
about. Yet radicals are always working among them. Few
people appreciate the importance of these millions of people,
for they vote. And if they are never told both sides of a
story, they cannot be blamed for believing the only side they
have eternally dinned in their ears.
Much of the effectiveness of this program depends upon the
calibre of the Special Committee on Public Information. If they
are of a type who will give some time to sitting down with editors,
ministers, foreign language groups, heads of women's clubs, etc.,
and are influential enough to make their weight felt with news¬
papers, radio stations and other business people within the town,
the carrying through of the program will be immeasurably in¬
creased. On the other hand, if the Public Relations man is forced
to go it alone without a strong committee back of him, his job
will be more difficult.
National Association of Manufacturers
Public Relations Department,
James P. Selvage, Director.
—(Source: Same report.)
278
1000 AMERICANS
APPENDIX 19.
THE N.A.M.
76th Congress, 1st Session. SENATE. Report No. 6, part 6.
Violations of Free Speech and Rights of Labor
Report of the Committee on Education and Labor
Labor Policies of Employers* Associations
Part III
The National Association of Manufacturers
The National Association of Manufacturers joined the open-
shop movement and adopted at its convention in New Orleans in
April 1903, a “Declaration of Labor Principles.** The association
declared in these principles the unrestricted supremacy of the em¬
ployers in the establishment of conditions ot work, just as the
National Metal Trades Association had done 2 years earlier. The
National Association of Manufacturers itself said that its labor
P rinciples “marked the first declaration by a representative national
ody for the open shop as a cardinal policy of American manufac¬
turing.**
Mr. Van Cleave also had special writers on the pay roll of the
association. Senator Thomas J. Walsh, of Montana, brought out in
the cross-examination of Mr. Van Cleave*s secretary, Mr. Ferdinand
C. Schwedtman, that one Charles M. Harvey, of the St, Louis Globe
Democrat, also a contributor to the Atlantic Monthly, had been
hired by Mr. Van Cleave to write articles for him.
One of the speakers who did missionary work for the National
Association of Manufacturers was Ellis L. Howland, an editor of
the New York Journal of Commerce,
Lobbying and legislative pressure politics, sometimes ap¬
proaching dangerously close to a perversion of representative gov¬
ernment, were the principal devices used by the representatives of
the association in these earlier struggles. This direct approach was
implemented by propaganda, secret, and pervasive; a powerful
weapon used by the association and its affiliated employer organi¬
zations, to sway public opinion against labor and in favor ot the
position taken by the association. Propaganda, under the euphe¬
mistic designation of “education,** was a substitute constantly em¬
ployed by the association to efface the impression or the conscious¬
ness of industrial evils, instead of correcting their fundamental
causes.
Chapter II. Control of the National Association of Manufacturers
APPENDICES 279
Section 1. Reorganization of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers, 1933
After the national election of 1932, even before the progressive
policies of the new administration had been crystallized in legisla¬
tion, certain industrial leaders took steps to unify business senti¬
ment and to initiate an expensive program of public education
in sympathy with the aims of business. A group of wealthy business¬
men who styled themselves the “Brass Hats" met occasionally in
New York City to discuss problems of “business salvation.*’ Out of
this group grew a more formal committee of the National Associa¬
tion of Manufacturers. This committee brought about a reorganiza¬
tion of the association, introduced new leadership, and formulated
a program of united action by corporate interests.
The available information indicates that Charles R. Hook,
president of the American Rolling Mill Co.; Robert B. Hender¬
son, president of the Pacific Portland Cement Co.; Robert L. Lund,
president of the Lambert Pharmacal Co.; were in the original
group which planned and executed the reorganization of the
National Association of Manufacturers.
Table 3—15 largest contributors of the National Association
of Manufacturers, Jan. 1, 1933, to Oct. 31, 1937.
E. I. duPont de Nemours Co.
General Motors Corporation
National Steel Corporation
United States Steel Corporation
Monsanto Chemical Co.
Westinghousc Electric 8c Manufacturing Co.
Chrysler Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Texas Corporation
Borg-Warner Corporation
Republic Steel Corporation
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
Swift 8c Co.
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
Eastman Kodak Co.
Total
Total
$118,600.00
66,520.00
42,050.00
41,450.00
36,775.00
35,912.00
35,400.00
29,250.00
27,500.00
27,141.67
24,650.00
22,000.00
21,150.00
20,600.00
20,216.00
$569,214.67
The companies which belong to the group of large contribu¬
tors which were represented on the board of directors of the Na¬
tional Association of Manufacturers at some time during the years
1933-38, and companies which were continuously represented on
the board of directors for 3 or more years are given in table 4.
In this group will be found the president, the chairman of the
280
1000 AMERICANS
board, the vice presidents, treasurers, and the most active, the
most generous supporters of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers, and its public relations and propaganda activities. In this
group are found T. M. Girdler, of Republic Steel Corporation;
Colby M. Chester, of General Foods Corporation; H. A. Bullis, of
General Mills, Inc.; Lammot duPont, of E. I. duPont de Nemours
& Co.; Walter J. Kohler, of Kohler Co.; John E. Edgerton, of
Lebanon Woolen Mills; S. Bayard Colgate, of Colgate-Palmolive-
Peet Co.; Robert L. Lund, of Lambert Pharmacal Co.; William B.
Warner, of McCall Corporation; C. L. Bardo of New York Ship¬
building Corporation; H. L. Furgeson, of Newport News Ship¬
building &: Dry Dock Co.; W. T. Holliday, of Standard Oil Co.,
who in 1939 was president of the United States Chamber of Com¬
merce. The control of the association is in the hands of these in¬
terests. By giving financial support, by actively participating in the
councils of the association, and by stirring other companies to lend
their names and help to the work of the association, these men
have assumed the leadership and the responsibility for the activi¬
ties of the association.
Section 4. Attempt at Nullification After Enactment of S. 1958
(Wagner Act)
Immediately after passage of S. 1958 by the Congress (75th),
even before the signing of the act by the President on July 5,
the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Indus¬
trial Council took steps to consider and clarify their future attitude
toward the act. On June 29, George F. Kull, chairman of the State
association group of the National Industrial Council, and Sidney E.
Cornelius, chairman of the employment relations group, sent letters
to their respective members inviting them to attend a secret meet¬
ing at the Hotel Roosevelt, New York City, on Tuesday, July 9.
Mr. Kull advised, “Please avoid giving out any bulletins or public
announcements on this meeting." Mr. Cornelius also suggested,
“No publicity on this meeting is necessary, so do not mention it in
your bulletins” On the same day, June 29, Robert L. Lund, and
C. L. Bardo, president of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers, sent out invitations to members of the board of directors
and members of the executive committee of the association to at¬
tend special all-day conferences on July 10 and 11, the day after
the Council meeting, at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York
City. Mr. Lund’s letter stated, “It seems highly advisable in the
light of recent developments to call a meeting of our board of
directors." The agenda presented by Mr. Lund included:
1. Consideration of Wagner Labor Disputes Bill as passed;
validity; future policy, etc. * * *
2. President’s Tax program ♦ * *
3. Reorganization of N.R.A. * * •
appendices 281
4. Future organized effort necessary to protect American in¬
dustrial system.
5. Social Security—Form of advice to offer our members with
respect to this important legislation which is now a law.
Chapter V. The Propaganda Campaign of the National Association
of Manufacturers
The National Association of Manufacturers had opposed the
principal legislative measures sponsored by the national administra¬
tion during the congressional session of 1935. It had opposed the
National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, the Bank¬
ing Act, the Utility Holding Company Act, and the President’s tax
program. In spite of the association’s opposition, all these measures
became law. This was a great blow to the association; but its officers
remained undaunted and they redoubled their propaganda efforts.
The program of ''education” that was initiated in 1933 and 1934
now became its principal weapon of defense for the status quo, and
it was carried forward with mounting intensity.
As time went on the public relations committee of the Na¬
tional Association of Manufacturers perfected its program of com¬
munity education. A highly developed program was formulated
early in 1937, and on April 13, 1937, it was submitted to the mem¬
bers of the committee on public relations of the National Assoda*
tion of Manufacturers. The purpose that this program was designed
to accomplish is indicated by the introductory paragraph of this
outline:
''Now, more than ever before, strikes are being won or lost in
the newspapers and over the radio. The swing of public opinion
has always been a major factor in labor disputes, but with the set¬
tlement of strikes being thrown more and more into the laps of
public officials, the question of public opinion becomes of greater
importance. For it is public opinion—what the voters think—that
moves those elected to action along one course or another.”
The fundamental philosophy of the association’s leadership in
1934, based on a conception of automatic operation of the eco¬
nomic system, found itself in conflict with measures then being
taken by governmental agencies to cope with a national crisis.
And consequently the association, unable to explain the economic
readjustments that had taken place after 1929, forthwith blamed
•'Communists,” "impatient reformers,” "disturbers,” "persecutors,”
and "teacher propagandists,” for the misunderstandings that had
arisen.
In writing of the association's "education program” for school
children, James P. Selvage, director of the public relations depart¬
ment, did not speak of truth, or facts, or education, but referred to
the theory that "pictures have become accepted more and more as
the most impressive medium for leaving a lasting impression on
282
1000 AMERICANS
children/' and that “here is an unlimited field of distribution in
which we would be reaching children during their formative years/'
Section 5. Purposes of Propaganda
The National Association of Manufacturers in letters, bulle¬
tins, and speeches consistently refers to its information program
and the various methods of disseminating this program as designed
to mold public opinion. Before this committee the program was
described as an attempt to educate the public with regard to ad¬
vantages of private industry. Upon further analysis, the program
appears as an attempt, first, to affect the organizational efforts of
labor unions, and second, to render public opinion intolerant
of the aims of social progress through legislative effort.
' The director of public relations of the National Association of
Manufacturers, James P. Selvage, was not unmindful of the poten¬
tial value of its program as a weapon against labor when he wrote,
as quoted in the preceding section, “Now more than ever before,
strikes are being won or lost in the newspapers and over the radio."
The effectiveness of publicity against labor unions has been
compared favorably with the use of labor spies and tear gas. The
National Association of Manufacturers deemed it of interest to its
members to print in its labor relations bulletin a digest of an article
by Don Gridley which had appeared in Printers' Ink of March 11,
1937, in which Gridley suggested that advertising, instead of tear
gas artd labor spies, be used as a weapon against strikers. In this
article Gridley stated that, “If manufacturers would invest one-
tenth of the money in advertising preparation that they are appar¬
ently quite willing to invest in labor spies, tear gas, and other
methods, which have proved worse than useless, they will stand
a far better chance of winning public support than is possible
under present circumstances."
The speaker supplied free by the association was George E.
Sokolsky, “ex-radical," ex-China correspondent for the New York
Times, industrial “consultant" for the Iron and Steel Institute,
newspaper columnist and “the outstanding advocate of the open
shop in America." Mr. Lloyd explained in a special bulletin dated
September 22, 1936, that Mr. R. M. Welch, the manager of per¬
sonnel of Youngstown Sheet 8c Tube Co., had recommended Sokol¬
sky. Mr. Lloyd stated that “Mr. Sokolsky's early life was spent as
a Communist and a radical. He has now reformed, and has a real
message to deliver to those of us who are interested in the welfare
of industry. He calls a spade a spade."
In finances, organization, sponsorship, arrangements, publicity,
and the selection of speaker, the civic progress meeting in Youngs¬
town is representative of the surreptitious methods of the National
Association of Manufacturers. Mr. Lloyd confirmed the secrecy of
the proceedings in Youngstown:
appendices
283
“Senator La Follette. Well, the net effect was that the activity
of the National Association of Manufacturers and its having
prompted the meeting, its contributing 50 ‘bucks’, and furnishing
Mr. Sokolsky, was all concealed from the public, wasn’t it?
“Mr. Lloyd. Yes; that was not generally known.”
John W. Hill testified that George Sokolsky was assigned to
carry out the work which the National Association of Manufac¬
turers required. The arrangement was summarized in the following
testimony:
“Senator La Follette. * * * I understand the arrangement to
be as follows, and if I am incorrect, please indicate so: You ar¬
ranged with Mr. Sargent of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers that you would pay Mr. George Sokolsky $1,000 a month
for certain services that Mr. Sokolsky was to render to the National
Association of Manufacturers; and that the National Association of
Manufacturers was to pay you $1,000 a month for the services that
Mr. Sokolsky rendered to the National Association of Manufac¬
turers; is that correct?
“Mr. Hill. Right.”
In return for his services. Hill & Knowlton paid George
Sokolsky fees ranging from $1,000 to $2,000. Between June 1936
and February 1938, Mr. Sokolsky was paid by Hill & Knowlton
fees amounting to $28,364.50, of which at least $6,000 came from
the National Association of Manufacturers.
In addition to these amounts received from Hill 8c Knowlton,
George Sokolsky also received direct payments from the National
Association of Manufacturers between May 1936 and March 1938
amounting to $3,409.36. Part of this money was payment to Mr.
Sokolsky by the National Association of Manufacturers for radio
speeches.
Frank Purnell, president of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
was questioned conce»'ning the special service undertaken by Hill 8c
Knowlton for the six steel companies of which his company was
one. . . .
“Senator La Follette. Did you ever get anything from him
since then?
“Mr. Purnell. Of course, there were a lot of pamphlets by
Sokolsky, or newspaper items; I can’t trace it, but I have seen
articles by him, and I can’t trace them.
“Senator La Follette. You are not implying, are you, that Mr.
Sokolsky got any of this money for writing his syndicated column
v/hich appears in the New York Herald Tribune and other news¬
papers?
“Mr. Purnell. I don’t know anything about that.
284
1000 AMERICANS
“Senator La Follette. Did you get any services out of Mr.
Sokolsky aside from this meeting of the Foremen’s Club that you
know anything about?
“Mr. Purnell. No, sir.”
The activities of the National Association of Manufacturers be¬
came so bold and sometimes indiscreet that a scandal occurred in
1913, when public charges were made that agents of the associa¬
tion had given “financial rewards” to Congressmen to promote its
legislative program. Both Houses of Congress passed resolutions
to investigate the lobbying activities of the association. These in¬
vestigations disclosed that: the association had placed an employee
of the House of Representatives on its pay rolls in order to obtain
information not available to the public; the association’s agents
had contributed large sums of money to congressional candidates
in their campaigns for reelection and had opposed representatives
friendly to labor; the association had carried on a disguised propa¬
ganda campaign through newspaper syndicates and through the
Chautauqua circuits by placing publicists on its pay roll, and by
distributing large quantities of propaganda material to schools,
colleges, and civic organizations throughout the country; the asso¬
ciation’s agents had promoted employees’ alliances as an aid in
opposing candidates friendly to labor. Responsible officials of the
National Association of Manufacturers did not renounce any part
of their activities revealed before the Senate and House committees
in 1913. On the contrary they reasserted the necessity of pursuing
the course which they had followed previously in order to counter¬
act the “operations of organized labor.”
In order to carry out its program the National Association of
Manufacturers, together with other associations, organized in 1916
the Chamber of Commeue of the United States and the National
Industrial Conference Board. . . .
In this period while opposing union organization under the
cover of “patriotism and freedom” the association’s representatives
maintained their unyielding attitude on social legislation just as
they had done prior to 1913. The continued opposition to modifi¬
cation of the antitrust laws to exempt labor unions from the ap¬
plication of the law, legislation restricting the issuing of injunc¬
tions by Federal courts against labor unions in industrial disputes,
regulation of child labor, regulation of the hours of work on Gov¬
ernment contracts, the establishment of collective bargaining in
employment relations among interstate carriers, and many other
legislative proposals designed to correct some of the basic disloca¬
tions which gave rise to social unrest.
Until 1933 the National Association of Manufacturers had
been under the control principally of smaller industrial concerns.
After the national election of 1932, a group of industrial leaders
who called themselves the “Brass Hats” held informal meetings in
APPENDICES
285
Detroit and New York to determine the proper action they should
take for “business salvation.” They selected the National Asso¬
ciation of Manufacturers because of its organization and experi¬
ence as their vehicle for a campaign and financed it by contribu¬
tions from large corporations.
The management of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers was reorganized in 1933, in accordance with the plans of the
“Brass Hats.” Robert L. Lund, president of the Lambert Phar-
macal Co., of St. Louis, became president of the association and
Walter B. Weisenburger, formerly an executive of the St. Louis
Chamber of Commerce, was selected as executive vice president of
the association to carry out this reorganization and to initiate the
new program of activities. Charles R. Hook, president of American
Rolling Mill Co., started an underwriting campaign by securing
contributions from T. M. Girdler of the Republic Steel Corpora¬
tion, Frank Purnell of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., and
others. Participation in this underwriting was conditioned upon the
reorganization of the association’s management. The American
Iron and Steel Institute and the Associated Industries of Cleve¬
land advised their members to support the revised program of the
National Association of Manufacturers.
A group of 262 nationally known companies supplied 50 per
cent of its income during the period 1933 to 1937. Largest con¬
tributor during this period was E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
with $118,600, most of which was donated in 1936 and 1937.
7. The Propaganda Campaign
The association’s propaganda campaign projected in 1933 and
started in 1934, went into effect in full swing in the summer of
1936, just prior to the national election. Through newspapers,
radio, motion pictures, slide films, stockholders’ letters, pay-roll
stuffers, billboard advertisements, civic-progress meetings and local
advertising, the National Association of Manufacturers blanketed
the country with a propaganda barrage which surpassed its “In¬
dustrial Conservation Movement” of 1916-20 in intensity, scope and
variety of technique. With the cooperation of large member cor¬
porations and local employers’ associations affiliated with the Na¬
tional Industrial Council, the association’s “educational” program
reached every important industrial community in the United States.
Its message was directed against “labor agitators,” against govern¬
mental measures to alleviate industrial distress, against labor
unions, and for the advantages of the status quo in industrial rela¬
tions, of which company-dominated unions were still a part. Anti¬
union employers and local employers’ association executives used
the propaganda material of the National Association of Manufac¬
turers to combat the organizational drive of unions in local indus-
dustrial areas. This was particularly the case in the steel producing
286 1000 AMERICANS
centers of Ohio where a labor organizational drive was under
way.
The National Association of Manufacturers has blanketed the
country with a propaganda which in technique has relied upon
indirection of meaning, and in presentation upon secrecy and de¬
ception. Radio speeches, public meetings, news, cartoons, editorials,
advertising, motion pictures, and many other artifices of propa¬
ganda have not in most instances disclosed to the public their
origin with the association. The Mandeville Press Service, the Six
Star Service, Uncle Abner cartoons, George Sokolsky's services, the
“American Family Robinson^ radio broadcasts, “Harmony Ads“ by
MacDonald-Cook Co., “civic progress meetings" and many other
devices of molding public opinion have been used without dis¬
closure of the origin and financial support by the National Asso¬
ciation of Manufacturers.
5. With the funds of this group of powerful corporations, the
National Association of Manufacturers has flooded the country with
biased propaganda directed against organizations of American
workingmen and against social legislation adopted by Congress.
This propaganda, for the most part unidentified to the public as
coming from the National Association of Manufacturers, is reiter¬
ated day after day through the means of every channel of public
expression, in the press, over the radio, in schools, on billboards,
by public speakers, by direct mail, and in pay envelopes. In some
cases the National Association of Manufacturers has contrived to
arrange for the sponsorship of its propaganda by others, for the
purpose of misleading the public into believing that it came from
an independent source. Much of this propaganda is intended to
influence the public with reference to elections, and, officials of the
association have boasted that its propaganda has influenced the
political opinions of millions of citizens, and affected their choice
of candidates for Federal offices.
7. The committee condemns the deliberate action taken by the
National Association of Manufacturers to promote organized dis¬
regard for the National Labor Relations Act. Such action by a pow¬
erful and responsible organization encourages disrespect for the
law and undermines the authority of government.
8. The National Association of Manufacturers* campaign of
propaganda stems from the almost limitless resources of corporate
treasuries. Not individuals but corporations constitute the member¬
ship of the association and supply its funds. It is this fact that
makes the political aspects of the association's campaign of propa¬
ganda a matter of serious concern. In effect the National Associa¬
tion of Manufacturers is a vehicle for spending corporate funds
to influence the opinion of the public in its selection of candidates
for office. It may be questioned whether such use of the resources
of corporate enterprise does not contravene the well established
appendices
287
public policy forbidding corporations to make contributions in
connection with political elections. The National Association of
Manufacturers is to be condemned for cloaking its propaganda in
anonymity and for failing clearly to disclose to the public wliom
it is trying to influence that this lavish propaganda campaign has
as its source the National Association of Manufacturers.
9. Finally, the committee deplores the failure of the National
Association of Manufacturers and the powerful corporations which
guide its policies to adapt themselves to changing times and to laws
which the majority of the people deem wise and necessary.
APPENDIX 20.
THE FIRST FASCIST PLOT TO SEIZE THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT
(Editorial Note: General Smedley Butler testified before
a Congressional Committee that several Wall Street bankers,
one of them connected with J. P. Morgan & Co., several
founders of thQ American Liberty League, and several heads
of the American Legion plotted to seize the government of the
United States shortly after President Roosevelt established
the New Deal. The press, with a few exceptions, suppressed
the news. Worse yet, the McCormack-Dickstein Committee
suppressed the facts involving the big business interests,
although it confirmed the plot which newspapers and maga¬
zines had either refused to mention or had tried to kill by
ridicule. In the following quotations the suppressed parts are
in italics.)
General Butler's Testimony regarding his interview
with Gerald G. MacGuire, of the brokerage firm of
Grayson M.-P. Murphy:
Then MacGuire said that he was the chairman of the dis¬
tinguished-guest committee of the American Legion, on Louis
Johnson’s staff; that Louis Johnson had, at MacGuire’s suggestion,
put my name down to be invited as a distinguished guest of the
Chicago convention; that Johnson had then taken this list, pre¬
sented by MacGuire, of distinguished guests, to the White House
for approval; that Louis Howe, one of the secretaries to the Presi-
288 1000 AMERICANS
dent, had crossed my name off and said that I was not to be in¬
vited—that the President would not have it.
I thought I smelled a rat, right away—that they were trying to
get me mad—to get my goat. I said nothing.
“He (Murphy) is on our side, though. He wants to see the
soldiers cared for.
**Is he responsible, too, for making the Legion a strikebreaking
outfit?'*
**No, no. He does not control anything in the Legion now**
I said: **You know very well that it is nothing but a strike¬
breaking outfit used by capital for that purpose and that is the
reason we have all those big clubhouses and that is the reason I
pulled out from it. They have been using these dumb soldiers to
oreak strikes.**
He said: *'Murphy hasn't anything to do with that. He is a
very fine fellow.**
I said, do not doubt that, but there is some reason for his
putting $125,000 into this.**
Well, that was the end of that conversation.
* * *
I said, “Is there anything stirring about it yet?“
“Yes," he says; “you watch; in two or three weeks you will
see it come out in the papers. There will be big fellows in it" . . .
and in about two weeks the American Liberty League appeared,
which was just about what he described it to be. (The committee
report suppresses the italicized words.)
We might have an assistant President, somebody to take the
blame; and if things do not work out, he can drop him. He said,
*'That is what he was building up Hugh Johnson for. Hugh John¬
son talked too damn much and got him into a hole, and he is
going to fire him in the next three or four weeks.**
I said, *‘How do you know all this?**
**Oh!* he said, ”we are in with him all the time. We know
what is going to happen.**
* * *
General Butler's Testimony of his interview with
Robert Sterling Clark.
He (Clark) laughed and said, “That speech cost a lot of
money." Clark told me that it had cost him a lot of money. Now
either from what he said then or from what MacGuire had said, 1
got the impression that the speech had been written by John W.
Davis—one or the other of them told me that —but he thought it
was a big joke that these fellows were claiming the authority of
that speech. . , .
He said, “When I was in Paris, my headquarters were Morgan
& Hodges (Harjes). We had a meeting over there. I might as well
APPENDICES
289
tell you that our group is for you, for the head of this organiza¬
tion. Morgan & Hodges (Harjes) are against you. The Morgan in¬
terests say that you cannot be trusted, that you are too radical,
and so forth, that you are too much on the side of the little fellow;
you cannot be trusted. They are for Douglas Mac Arthur as the head
of it, Douglas MacArthur*s term expires in November, and if he is
not reappointed it is to be presumed that he will be disappointed
and sore and they are for getting him to head it**
1 said, *T do not think that you will get the soldiers to follow
him, Jerry . . . He is in bad odor, because he put on a uniform
with medals to march down the street in Washington, I know the
soldiers.**
''Well, then, we will get Hanford MacNider. They want either
MacArthur or MacNider, , , They do not want you. But our group
tell us you are the only fellow in America who can get the soldiers
together. They say, ‘Yes, but he will get them together and go the
wrong way.* That is what they say if you take charge of them.**
1 said, "MacNider won’t do either. He will not get the soldiers
to follow him, because he has been opposed to the bonus.**
"Yes, but we will have him in change.** (Charge? ed note.)
And it is interesting to note that three weeks later after this
conversation MacNider changed and turned around for the bonus.
It is interesting to note that.
He said "There is going to be a big quarrel over the reap¬
pointment of MacArthur** and he said, "you watch the President
reappoint him. He is going to go right and if he does not reappoint
him, he is going to go left.**
I have been watching with a great deal of interest this quarrel
over his reappointment to see how it comes out. He said "You
know as well as I do that MacArthur is Stotesbury*s sontnlaw in
Philadelphia — Morgan’s representative in Philadelphia. You just
see how it goes and if I am not telling you the truth.**
I noticed that MacNider turned around for the bonus, and
that there is a row over the reappointment of MacArthur. So he
left me saying, “I am going down to Miami. . . .**
* « *
Testimony of Paul Comly French of Philadelphia
Record, in the Smedley Butler-Legion hearing.
At first he (MacGuire) suggested that the General (Butler)
organize this outfit himself and ask a dollar a year dues from every¬
body. We discussed that, and then he came around to the point
of getting outside financial funds, and he said it would not be any
trouble to raise a million dollars. He said he could go to John W.
Davis (attorney for J. P. Morgan & Co.) or Perkins of the National
City Bank, and any number of persons to get it.
Of course, that may or may not mean anything. That is, his
reference to John W. Davis and Perkins of the National City Bank.
290
1000 AMERICANS
During my conversation with him I did not of course commit
the General to anything. I was just feeling him along. Later, we
discussed the question of arms and equipment, and he suggested
that they could be obtained from the Remington Arms Co., on
credit through the DuPonts.
I do not think at that time he mentioned the connections of
DuPonts with the American Liberty League, but he skirted alt
around it. That is, I do not think he mentioned the Liberty
League, but he skirted all around the idea that that was the
back door; one of the DuPonts is on the board of directors
of the American Liberty League and they own a controlling
interest in the Remington Arms Co. . . . He said the General
would not have any trouble enlisting 500,000 men.
APPENDIX 21.
THE FASCIST PLOT OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED
Union Calender No. 44
74th Congress House of Representatives Report
1st Session No. 153
Investigation of Nazi And Other Propaganda
February 15, 1935—Committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of tlie Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. McCormack, from the committee appointed to investigate Nazi
and other propaganda, submitted the following
REPORT
(Pursuant to House Resolution No. 198, 73d Congress)
Fascism
There have been isolated cases of activity by organizations
which seemed to be guided by the fascist principle, which the com¬
mittee investigated and found that they had made no progress. . . .
In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received
evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to
establish a fascist organization in this country.
No evidence was presented and this committee had none to
show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of
any European country.
There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were
planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the
financial backers deemed it expedient.
appendices
291
This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen. Smedley D.
Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United
States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with
one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have sug¬
gested the formation of a fascist aimy under the leadership of
General Butler (p. 8-114 D.C. 6 II).
MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your com¬
mittee was able to verify all tlie pertinent statements made by
General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggest¬
ing the creation of the organization. This, however, was cor¬
roborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal,
Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was
abroad studying the various forms of veterans’ organizations of
Fascist character (p. Ill D.C. 6 11).
The following is an excerpt from one of MacGuire’s letters:
I had a very interesting talk last evening with a man who is
quite well up on affairs here and he seems to be of the opinion
that the Croix de Feu will be very patriotic during this crisis
and will take the cuts or be the moving spirit in the veterans
to accept the cuts. Therefore they will, in all probability, be
in opposition to the Socialists and functionaries. The general
spirit among the functionaries seems to be that the correct
way to regain recovery is to spend more money and increase
wages, rather than to put more people out of work and cut
salaries.
The Croix de Feu is getting a great number of new recruits,
and I recently attended a meeting of this organization and
was quite impressed with the type of men belonging. These
fellows are interested only in the salvation of France, and
I feel sure that the country could not be in better hands be¬
cause they are not politicians, they are a cross-section of the
best people of the country from all walks of life, people who
gave their ‘‘all” between 1914 and 1918 that France might be
saved, and I feel sure that if a crucial test ever comes to the
Republic that these men will be the bulwark upon which
France will be served.
There may be more uprisings, there may be more difficulties,
but as is evidenced right now when the emergency arises and
party difficulties are forgotten as far as France is concerned,
and all become united in the one desire and purpose to keep
this country as it is, the most democratic, and the country of
the greatest freedom on the European Continent (p. Ill D.C.
6 II).
This committee asserts that any efforts based on lines as sug¬
gested in the foregoing and leading off to the extreme right, are
just as bad as efforts which would lead to the extreme left.
Armed forces for the purpose of establishing a dictatorship by
292
1000 AMERICANS
means of Fascism or a dictatorship through the instrumentality of
the proletariat, or a dictatorship predicated in part on racial and
religious hatreds, have no place in this country.
APPENDIX 22.
SUBSIDIZERS OF AMERICAN REACTION
{Editorial Note: All the names of persons, corporations,
organizations subsidized, and amounts given, are taken from
the Lobby Investigation, headed by Senator Black, now a
member of the Supreme Court. The document is known as:
74th Congress, 2d Session, Digest of Data, Special Committee
to Investigate Lobbying Activities, U.S. Senate.
(The Crusaders were originally organized to restore liquor.
The Sentinels were the most fascist of all the Liberty League
affiliates. In their files Senator Black found letters saying “the
old line Americans of $1200 a year want a Hitler,“ “the New
Deal is communist,” Roosevelt brought “a Jewish brigade” to
Washington, and “the Jewish threat is a real one.”
(The Sentinels supplied editorials to 1300 papers “urging
a return to American principles.”)
Name
Organization Amount
Addinsell, H. M.
President, Chase Harris
Forbes
Corp.; director. Cities
Service
Power & Light Co.,
Philips
Petroleum Co., U. S.
Electric
Power Co.
100
American Liberty League
200
Allen, E. M.
President, Mathieson
Alkali
Works; Director, Austro-Amer-
ican Magnesite Corp., etc.Crusaders.
100
Armour, Lester.
American Liberty League
200
2,500
APPENDICES
293
Name
Organization
Amount
Ames, Theodore
Partner, Broody, McLellan
Sc
Co.
..Crusaders.
. ..
10
American Liberty League
120
Avery, Sewell .
Baker, George D. F.
.. Crusaders.
...
5,000
First National Bank, A. T. & T.,
U. S. Steel.
..National Economy
League .
...
1,250
Ball, George A.
.. Crusaders.
...
5,000
(Muncie, Indiana).
Bamberger, Clarence
(Salt Lake City)
Officer, director, 9 corporations;
stockholder in 20.Crusaders. 125
Brown, Donaldson
Vice-President, General Motors
Corp.; Director, E. I. duPont de
Nemours & Co.American Liberty League 20,000
Crusaders. 500
Carpenter, R. R. M.
Vice-President, E. I. duPont de
Nemours Sc Co.American Liberty League 20,000
Carpenter, W. S., Jr.
Vice-President, E. I. duPont de
Nemours Sc Co.American Liberty League 4,834
Economists National
Committee. 100
Chadbourne, T. L.
Director, 13 corporations, includ¬
ing Zonite Products Co.American Liberty League 6,250
Chrysler, Walter.Crusaders. 876
Clayton, W. L.
Partner, Anderson-Clayton Co.
(cotton brokers); Chairman, Ex¬
port Insurance Co., New York .. Southern Committee to
Uphold the Constitu¬
tion . 100
American Liberty League 7,750
Copeland, Charles C.
Secretary, E. 1. duPont de
Nemours Sc Co.American Liberty League 15,000
DuPont, A. M. L.
Trustee, Wilmington Trust Co.. American Liberty League 5,000
DuPont, Henry B.
Director, Wilmington Trust Co.. American Liberty League 20,000
Southern Committee to
Uphold the Constitu-
Finn
294
1000 AMERICANS
Name Organization Amount
DuPont, Ir^n^e
Vice-chairman, E. 1. duPont de
Nemours & Co.; director. Gen¬
eral Motors Corp...Crusaders. 10,000
Sentinels of the Republic 100
American Liberty League 86,750
Southern Committee to
Uphold the Constitu¬
tion . 100
Minute Men and Women
of Today. 1,400
DuPont, Lammot
President, E. I. duPont de
Nemours & Co.; chairman. Gen¬
eral Motors Corp., GM Ac¬
ceptance Corp., and 3 banks .. .Crusaders. 1,000
American Liberty League 15,000
N. Y. State Economic
Council . 1,000
Economists National
Committee on Mone¬
tary Policy. 1,000
Southern Committee to
Uphold the Constitu¬
tion . 3,000
Repeal Associates.
Farmers Independence
Council . 5,000
DuPont, Pierre S.
Vice-President, Wilmington
Trust Co.; director, General
Motors Corp.Southern Committee to
Uphold the Constitu¬
tion . 5,000
American Liberty League 5,300
DuPont, S. Hallock.American Liberty League 20,000
DuPont, William, Jr., President,
Delaware Trust Co.American Liberty League 20,000
Erickson, A. W.
Chairman, McCann - Erickson
(adv. agency); director, Congo-
leum, Nairn, Newskin Co., Bon
Ami, etc.Crusaders.
Liberty League.
N. Y. State Economic
100
875
Council
350
APPENDICES
295
Name Organization Amount
Echols, A. B.
Vice-president of DuPont; direc¬
tor, Wilmington Trust Co.,
Grasselli Chemical Co., Hotel
DuPont, Viscoloid Co.
.Crusaders.
75
Sentinels of the Republic
25
American Liberty League
American Federation of
575
Utility Investors.
Farmers Independence
250
Council .
. 110
Emery, Joseph H., Jr.
Advisory Board, Chase National
Bank.
. Crusaders .
American Liberty League
Farish, W. S.
Standard Oil.
. Crusaders.
200
Greef, Bernard
Partner, Greef & Co., brokers..
. Crusaders.
American Federation of
5
Utility Investors.
100
Hawkes, A. W.
Congoleum Nairn, Senator
, .American Liberty League
250
Heinz, Howard
President, H, J. Heinz Co.; direc¬
tor, Mellon National Bank .... American Liberty League 2,500
Crusaders. 5,876
Houston, George H.
President, Baldwin Locomotive
Works; director. Standard Steel
Works, etc. .Crusaders. 100
American Liberty I .eague 500
National Economy
League. 50
Hutton, Edward F.
Former chairman. General
Foods, Inc.; chairman, Zonite
Corporation; director. Manufac¬
turers Trust Co., Chrysler.Crusaders. 5,000
American Liberty League 20,000
National Economy
League . 300
Kemmerer, Prof. E. W.
Princeton.Southern Committee ... 5
American Liberty League 5
Kent, A. Atwater.Sentinels of the Republic 1,000
296
1000 AMERICANS
Name Organization Amount
Knudsen, William S.
Vice-President, General
Motors
Corp.
Kroger, Bernard.
La Boyteaux, W. H.
500
President, Johnson & Higgins;
director, Grace National
Bank,
etc.
100
American Liberty League
American Taxpayers
100
League .
40
Lasker, Albert
(Advertising) .
5,000
Lloyd, Horatio
(Morgan Partner)
McCall, S. T.
1,000
Vice-President, American
Brake
Shoe Co., American Manganese
Steel Corp.
50
American Liberty League
100
Mellon, Andrew W.
Head of Mellon interests
1,000
Merrick, F. A.
President and director. Westing-
house Electric, Westinghouse
Supply, Laurentide Mico Co, .. Crusaders . 876
Milbanks, Jeremiah .Crusaders. 200
Moffett, George M.
President and director. Corn
Products, director 6 large cor¬
porations .Crusaders. 7,500
American Liberty League 10,000
Montgomery, E. W.
Director 2 cotton mills, and 2
cotton corporations.Crusaders. 50
American Liberty League 125
Morris, E. M.
President, Associated Investment
Co., Morris Finance Co., Motor
Indemnity Association, Motor
Underwriters.
25
American Liberty League
Economists National
50
Committee .
100
APPENDICES
Name Organization Amount
Morris, John A.
Member, Gude, Winmill & Co. . Crusaders . 75
American Liberty League 400
Sentinels of the Republic 10
Pepper, Geo. Wharton
(ex-Senator).Sentinels. 500
Pew, J. Howard
President, Sun Oil Co.; director.
Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock
Co.; director, Philadelphia Na¬
tional Bank .American Liberty League 20,000
Sentinels of the Republic 5,000
Crusaders. 4,000
National Economy
League . 5,000
Pitcairn, H. F.Sentinels . 5,000
Pitcairn, Rev. Theo.Sentinels . 3,500
Pitcairn, Raymond.Sentinels .91,000
Pratt, John L.
Vice-President, General Motors
Corp.American Liberty League 20,000
Purnell, Frank
President, Youngstown Sheet &
Tube .Crusaders.
American Liberty League
Raskob, John J.
Vice-President, E. I. DuPont;
director, General Motors Corp.;
director. Bankers Trust Co.American Liberty League 20,000
Southern Committee to
Uphold the Constitu-
Roosevelt, Nicholas.Sentinels
Sanis, E. C.
President, J. C. Penney Co.Crusaders
Schiff, John M.
Partner, Kuhn Loeb.j
Sloan, Alfred P.
President, General Motors
Corp.; director, E. I. DuPont;
tion .
.Sentinels .
5,000
500
.Crusaders.
100
American Liberty League
100
. N. Y. State Economic
Council .
200
s
.Farmers Independence
Council .
1,000
Crusaders.
10,000
American Liberty League
Southern Committee to
20,000
Uphold the Constitu-
298
1000 AMERICANS
Name Organization Amount
N, Y. State Economic
Council .
National Economy
League . 1,000
Stotesbury, E. T.
(Morgan Partner) .Sentinels . 1,000
Strauss, Lionel F.
Director, 11 street railway com¬
panies .Crusaders . 200
Sentinels of the Republic 25
Sulzberger, A. H.
(N. Y. Times).National Economy
League . 100
Teagle, W. C.Crusaders. 2,000
Van Alstyne, J. H.
President, Oliver Elevator Co. .. Crusaders. 25
American Liberty League 100
N. Y. State Economic
Council . 100
Weir, E. T.
Chairman, National Steel Corp.,
Weir ton Coal Co.; Weir ton Steel
Co., etc.American Liberty League 20,000
National Economy
League . 500
Crusaders. 10,126
Widcner, Joseph E.
Director, Baltimore & Ohio Rail¬
road; director, Reading Co.American Liberty League 20,000
Woodward, William
Honorary Chairman, Central
Hanover Bank 8c Trust Co.;
director, 7 other corporations .. Crusaders (Sound Money
committee) . 14,000
APPENDICES
299
APPENDIX 23.
THE SUPPRESSED U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT'S
EXPOSE OF FASCISM
{Editorial Note: It was the purpose of the morale division
of the Army to issue a weekly fact sheet for the purpose of
informing the troops why they were at war. However, the
entire program was sabotaged by a coalition of notable Ameri¬
can reactionaries, including Mr. Hearst, Congressman Rankin,
and one of Father Coughlin’s lawyers. The intrigue against the
educational program resulted from my publication of Army
Talk 64, which follows. The subheads are mostly mine.)
ARMY TALK Orientation Fact Sheet 64
WAR DEPARTMENT
Washington 25, D. C. 24 March 1945
FASCISMI
NOTE FOR THIS WEEK^S DISCUSSION:
Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze;
nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important
for our future and that of the world that as many of us
as possible understand the causes and practices of fas-
cism, in order to combat it Points to stress are: (1) Fas¬
cism is more apt to come to power at a time of economic
crisis; (2) fascism inevitably leads to war; (3) it can
come in any country; (4) we can best combat it by mak¬
ing our democracy work.
You are away from home, separated from your families, no
longer at a civilian job or at school and many of you are risking
your very lives because of a thing called fascism. . . .
We Americans have been fighting fascists for more than three
years. When Cecil Brown, one of the leading war correspondents,
came back from the battle fronts, he went on a trip that took
him into big cities and small towns all over America. He talked
and listened to all kinds of people. He found that most Americans
are vague about just what fascism really means. He found few
Americans who were confident they would recognize a fascist if
they saw one.
300
1000 AMERICANS
And are we in uniform any more certain what fascism
where it came from—what made it strong? Do we know how fascism
leads men to do the things done to people at Maidanek? Do we
know how it leads them to attack helpless nations? Are Maidaneks
and war inevitable results of fascism? Do all fascists speak only
German, Italian or Japanese—or do some of them speak our lan¬
guage? Will military victory in this war automatically kill fascism?
Or could fascism rise in the United States after it’s been crushed
abroad? What can we do to prevent it?
Perhaps we ought to get to know the answers. If we don’t
understand fascism and recognize fascism when we see it, it might
crop up again—under another label—and cause another war.
Fascism and Business
Fascism is a way to run a country—it’s the way Italy was
run, and the way Germany and Japan are run. Fascism is the pre¬
cise opposite of democracy. The people run democratic govern¬
ments, but fascist governments run the people.
F'ascism is government by the few and for the few. The
objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social,
and cultural life of the state. Why? The democratic way of life
interferes with their methods and desire for: (1) conducting busi¬
ness; (2) living with their fellow-men; (3) having the final say in
matters concerning others, as well as themselves. The basic prin¬
ciples of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—
democracy must gol Anyone who is not a member of their inner
gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no
equality before the law. . . . They maintain themselves in power
by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive
ideas of “blood” and “race,” by skillful manipulation of fear and
hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies
war and insists it is smart and “realistic” to be pitiless and violent.
Question: How does fascism get in power? How can a vio¬
lent program that enslaves the people win any support?
Financial Interests Behind Fascism
Fascism came to power in Germany, Italy and Japan at a
time of social and economic unrest. A small group of men, sup¬
ported in secret by powerful financial and military interests, con¬
vinced enough insecure people that fascism would give them the
things they wanted. . . .
At the very time that the fascists proclaimed that their party
was the party of the “average citizen,” they were in the pay of
certain big industrialists and financiers who wanted to run the
people with an iron hand.
The fascists promised everything to everyone: They would
make the poor rich and the rich richer. To the farmers, the fascists
promised land through elimination of large estates. To the workers
APPENDICES
301
they promised elimination of unemployment—jobs for all at high
wages. To the small business men they promised more customers
and profits through the elimination of large business enterprises.
To big business men and the industrialists they secretly promised
greater security and profits through the elimination of small busi¬
ness competitors and trade unions and the crushing of socialists
and communists. To the whole nation they piomised glory and
wealth by conquest. They asserted it was then right, as a “superior
people," to rule the world.
As soon as their methods had won them enough of a following
to form their Storm Troops, the fascists began using force to stifle
and wipe out any opposition. Those who saw thr'^ugh the false
front of fascism and opposed them were beaten, tortured and
killed.
The fascists knew that all believers in democracy were their
enemies. They knew that the fundamental principle of democracy
—faith in the common sense of the common people—was the op¬
posite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few. So they
fought democracy in all its phases. . . . They played the political,
religious, social and economic groups against each other and seized
power while these groups struggled against each other.
Little Business Betrayed
Question: How could the fascists keep their contradictory
promises, once they got in power? How did their program actually
work out?
It was easy enough for the fascists to promise all things to
all people before they were in power. Once they were actually in
power, they could not, of course, keep their contradictory prom¬
ises. They had intended in advance to break some, and they did
break those they had made to the middle classes, the workers,
and the farmers.
As soon as the fascists were in control of the government, the
torturings and killings were no longer the unlawful acts of a
political party and its hoodlum gangs. They became official gov¬
ernment policy. Among the first victims of this official policy were
those farmers, workers, and small business men who had believed
the promises that had been made to them and who complained
that they had been “sucked in." Some simply vanished. Often they
came home to their families by return mail in little jars of
ashes. . . .
The fascists “solved" unemployment by converting their na¬
tions into giant war machines. The unemployed were either con¬
scripted into the army or organized in labor battalions and put
to work in war plants.
Why Fascists Are Anti-Union
Deprived of their unions, the working people could be driven
302
1000 AMERICANS
to work longer and harder for less and less money, so that those
who subsidized and ran fascism could grow richer. By wiping out
all internal competition—especially the small and medium-sized
business firms—profits were increased still higher for the handful
on top. In some cases, the fascists then gobbled control of the top
corporations. The living standards of the masses of the people
declined, of course. As they earned less and less, they were able to
buy less and less of the goods they produced. . . ,
Once the fascists were in control of the government, not even
the gang on top was safe from its own members. There would be
more loot and power per fascist leader if some fascist leaders were
eliminated. Some of the party “big-shots" and some of those who
had helped them take over were therefore “purged." Many would-
be partners in the dictatorship, including some industrialists,
wound up in jail, in exile, or dead.
Can It Happen Here?
Some Americans would give an emphatic “No" to the ques¬
tion “Can fascism come to America after it has been defeated
abroad?" They would say that Americans are too smart, that they
are sold on the democratic way of life, that they wouldn’t permit
any group to put fascism over in America. Fascism, some might
say, is something peculiar that you find only among people who
like swastikas, who like to listen to speeches from balconies in
Rome, or who like to think that their emperor is god. Their
reaction might be that it is something “foreign" that Americans
would recognize in a minute, like the goose-step. They might feel
that we’d laugh it out ot existence in a hurry.
U, S. Has 100% American Fascists
Question: Do all fascists come from Germany, Japan, or Italy?
In a good many European nations, the people felt the same
way some of us do: that fascism was foreign to them and could
never become a power in their land. They found, however, that
fascist-minded people within their borders, especially with aid from
the outside, could seize power. The Germans, of course, made
efficient use of fascist-minded traitors whom we have come to
know generally as “the fifth column."
In France, which was considered a leading democracy of
Europe, the betrayal was spearheaded by a powerful clique of
native “100% French" fascists. Norway had its Quisling who was
as “pure-blooded" a Norwegian as Laval was a “pure-blooded"
Frenchman. The Netherlands’ Musserts were “100% Dutch," Bel¬
gium’s Degrelles “100% Belgian," and Britain’s Mosleys “100%
British." The United States also has its native fascists who say
that they are “100 percent American." There were native fascists
in the Philippines, in Thailand (Siam), in China, in Burma, in
APPENDICES
303
many other countries—all waiting to become willing puppets of
the Axis. Not one of these fascists is a “foreigner*' who had to be
imported from Germany, or Japan, or Italy.
Question: Have any groups in America used fascist tactics and
appeals?
Most of the people in America like to be good neighbors.
But, at various times and places in our history, we have had
sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilamism, terror, and
suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs.
Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religions bigots. All
of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic
methods and doctrines which experience has shown can be properly
identified as “fascist."
Crackpots and Alleged Seditionists
Can we aflFord to brush them off as mere crackpots? We once
laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache.
In January 1944, 30 Americans, many of them native born,
were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on charges of conspiring
with “the Nazi party to accomplish the objectives of said Nazi
party in the United States." These objectives, according to the in¬
dictment, included undermining and impairing “the loyalty and
morale of the military and naval forces of the United States."
The case ended in a mistrial caused by the death of the presiding
judge. The question of re-indictment is still under consideration.
Whenever free governments anywhere fail to solve their basic
economic and social problems, there is always the danger that a
native brand of fascism will arise to exploit the situation and the
people.
Can We Spot It?
Question: How can we identify native American fascists at
work?
An American fascist seeking power woujd not proclaim that
he is a fascist. Fascism always camouflages its plans and purposes.
Hitler made demagogic appeals to all groups and swore: “Neither
I nor anybody in the National Socialist Party advocates proceed¬
ing by anything but constitutional methods."
Any fascist attempt to gain power in America would not use
the exact Hitler pattern. It would work under the guise of “super¬
patriotism" and “super-Americanism." Fascist leaders are neither
stupid nor naive. They know that they must hand out a line that
“sells." Huey Long is said to have remarked that if fascism came
to America, it would be on a program of “Americanism."
Three Ways to Spot U, S. Fascists
Fascists in America may differ slightly from fascists in other
countries, but there are a number of attitudes and practices that
304
1000 AMERICANS
they have in common. Following are three. Every person who has
one of them is not necessarily a fascist. But he is in a mental
state that lends itself to the acceptance of fascist aims.
1. Pitting of religious, racial, and economic groups against one
another in order to break down national unity is a device of the
“divide and conquer’* technique used by Hitler to gain power in
Germany and in other countries. With slight variations, to suit
local conditions, fascists everywhere have used this Hitler method.
In many countries, anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews) is a dominant
device of fascism. In the United States, native fascists have often
been anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-Labor, anti-foreign-
born. In South America, the native fascists use the same scapegoats
except that they substitute anti-Protestantism for anti-Catholicism.
Interwoven with the “master-race” theory of fascism is a well-
planned “hate campaign” against minority races, religions, and
other groups. To suit their particular needs and aims, fascists will
use any one or a combination of such groups as a convenient §cape-
goat.
2. Fascism cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts
as the “brotherhood of man.” Fascists deny the need for interna¬
tional cooperation. These ideas contradict the fascist theory of the
“master race.” The brotherhood of man implies that all people—
regardless of color, race, creed, or nationality—have rights. Inter¬
national cooperation, as expressed in the Dumbarton Oaks pro¬
posals, runs counter to the fascist program of war and world
domination. . . . Right now our native fascists are spreading anti-
British, anti-Soviet, anti-French, and anti-United Nations propa¬
ganda. . . .
3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist party a
“communist.” For short, he is often called a “Red.” Indiscriminate
pinning of the label “Red” on people and proposals which one
opposes is a common political device. It is a favorite trick of native
as well as foreign fascists.
Many fascists make the spurious claim that the world has but
two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as
“communist” everyone who refuses to support them. By attacking
our free enterprise, capitalist democracy and by denying the effec¬
tiveness of our way of life they hope to trap many people.
Hitlefs Red Bogey
Hitler insisted that only fascism could save Europe and the
world from the “communist menace.” There were many people
inside and outside Germany and Italy who welcomed and sup¬
ported Hitler and Mussolini because they believed fascism was the
only safeguard against communism. The “Red bogey” was a con¬
vincing enough argument to help Hitler take and maintain power.
The Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis, whose aggressions plunged the
world into global war, was called the “Anti-Comintern Axis.” It was
APPENDICES
305
proclaimed by Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito as a “bulwark
against communism.'*
Learning to identify native fascists and to detect their tech¬
niques is not easy. They plan it that way. But it is vitally important
to learn to spot them, even though they adopt names and slogans
with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag,
and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democ¬
racy they are trying to destroy.
How to Stop It
Question: How can we prevent fascism from developing in the
United States?
The only way to prevent fascism from getting a hold in
America is by making our democracy work and by actively coop¬
erating to preserve world peace and security.
Lots of things can happen inside of people when they are
unemployed or hungry. They become frightened, angry, desperate,
confused. Many, in their misery, seek to find somebody to blame.
They look for a scapegoat as a way out. Fascism is always ready to
provide one. In its bid for power, it is ready to drive wedges that
will disunite the people and weaken the nation. It supplies the
scapegoat—Catholics, Jews, Negroes, labor unions, big business—
any group upon which the insecure and unemployed can be
brought to pin the blame for their misfortune.
We all know that many serious problems will face us when the
war is over. If there is a period of economic stress it will create ten¬
sions among our people, including us as returned veterans. l"he
resentment may be directed against minorities—especially if un¬
democratic organizations with power and money can direct our
emotions and thinking along these lines.
Citizen's Job to Fight Fascism
The fascist doctrine of hate fulfills a triple mission. By creat¬
ing disunity—it weakens democracy. By getting men to hate rather
than to think—it prevents men from seeking the real cause and a
democratic solution of the problem. By fake promises of jobs and
security, fascism then tries to lure men to its program as the way
out of insecurity. Only by democratically solving the economic
problems of our day can there be any certainty that fascism won't
happen here. That is our job as citizens.
Citizenship in a democracy is more than a ballot dropped in
a box on Election Day. It’s a 365-days-a-year job requiring the
active participation and best judgment of every citizen in the affairs
of his community, his nation, and his country's relations with the
world.
Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance. It makes head¬
way when people are apathetic or cynical about their government
306
1000 AMERICANS
—when they think of it as something far removed from them
and beyond their personal concern. The erection of a traffic light
on your block is important to your safety and the safety of your
children. The erection of a world organization to safeguard peace
and world security is just as important to our personal security.
Both must be the concern of every citizen.
Freedom, like peace and security, cannot be maintained in
isolation. It involves being alert and on guard against the in¬
fringement not only of our own freedom but the freedom of every
American. If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob
anyone of his democratic rights, our own freedom and all democ¬
racy is threatened.
What is true of America is true of the world. The germ of
fascism cannot be quarantined in a Munich Brown House or a
balcony in Rome. If we want to make certain that fascism does
not come to America, we must make certain that it does not thrive
anywhere in the world.
INDEX
A
Addes, George F., 143
Advertising, 16, 17, 20, 22, 30, 33, 34, 39,
46, 60, 64, 65, 66, 69. 99, 102, 141, 145,
146, 220, 221, 224, 237, 238, 282
Advertising Agencies, 90
A. F. of L., 55, 214, 238
Aiken, Sen Geo. D , 1, 2, 26, 38, 55
AIsop, Joseph, 37. 234
Aluminum Co , Alcoa, 26, 27, 28, 30, 145,
148, 18^ 251
America First, 21, 189
America First Party, 21
American Action, 3, 194, 200, 212, 223*9
American Bankers Ass’n, 10
American Bar Ass’n, 10
“American Century,” 111
American Civil Liberties Union, 203
American Defense Society, 200
American Druggist, 64
American Legion, 8, 195, 211, 225, 287
American Liberty League, 3, 61, 154, 179,
200, 202, 288, 290, 292 ft.
American Magazine, 60, 102
American Mercury, The, 93, 94, 111
American Newspaper Publishers Ass’n, 20,
47, 62, 65, 220
American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 40,
252
American Veterans Committee, 225
American Way. 246 ff.
Anaconda, IS ft., 274
Anderson, Jane, 107
Anti-Labor, 41, 92, 129, 233, 241
Anti-Semitism, 21, 61, 119, 198, 202
A & P, 251
Army Talk, 64, 196, 299 ff.
Arnold, Thurman, 3, 140, 142, 146, 147, 208
Asheville Congress, 203
Ass’n of American Railroads, 27
Associated Press, 20, 21, 83, 125, 124, 131,
170, 264, 268
Astor Family, 58, 89
Atlantic Monthly, 136
Atlas Corp , 110, 128
Atom, 14, 113, 153, 231, 233, 244
Augusta Chronicle, 59
Auto Industry, 145, 146
Avery, Sewell, 179, 183, 205, 224, 293
B
Bainbridge, John, 109
Ball, Sen. Joseph, 51, 52, 54, 56
Baltimore American, 108
Baltimore Sun, 202
Bankers Trust Co , 59, 254
Bank of America, 254
Banks, bankers, 1, 38, 58, 72, 75, 77, 167,
205, 254
Barnes, Dr. Harry Elmer, 77
Barton, Bruce, 122
Baruch, Bernard M, 11, 258
Beard, Charles and Mary, 77
Belgrano, Frank N., 211
Bell, Wm. B , 179
Bendix Aviation, 275
Berge, Wendell, 164, 208
Bess, Demaree, 121, 125
Bethlehem Steel Co., 40, 145, 252, 279
Bilbo, Theodore, 37
Billionaire Corporations, 256
Black, Hugo, 197, 203, 292
Blankenhorn, Heber, 204
Blatnik, Rep. John, 56
Bok, Curtis, 181
Boston Herald, 59, 149
Boston Transcript, 267
Boston Traveler, 59
Bowers, Claude, 176
Boyer, Richard O., 121
Brady, Prof. Robert A., 208, 253
Bridges, Sen. Styles, 37, 234
Bristol, Henry F , 101
Brooklyn Tablet, 222
Brooks, Sen C Wayland, 37
Broun. Heywood, 86, 90
Browaer, Farl, 105
Brown Broi , Hairinan & Co., 58, 73, 212
Brown, Donaldson, 181, 184, 205, 293
Brown, Lawrence, 264
Brown, Rep. Clarence, 54
Bruce, H E., 18
Buchman, Dr. Frank; Buchmanism, 200,
216, 217
Buehrer, E T , 216
Buff.'ilo Newspapers, 33
Bullitt, Wm. C , 113, 114
Burke, Fdw , 213
Burnham, James, 111, 243
Burton, H Ralph, 197
Bush, Dr. Vannevar, 245
Bushfield, Sen Karlau, 184, 188, 233
Business, big business, 11, 17, 22, 39, 52,
58, 66, 72, 136, 138*, 139 ff, 150, 160, 176,
212, 241, 305
Business Week, 61, 243
Butler, Snedley, 79, 208, 210, 229, 287 fiF.,
291
Byrd, Sen. Harry, 37, 52
C
Capone, Al, 132
Carlson, John Roy, 196
Carothers, Dr. Nci), 206
Cartels, 3, 140, 147, 148, 152, 160, 163, 208
Cartoonists, 42
Case, Rep Francis; Case Bill, 3, 49, 51,
184, 188, 189, 233
Casey, Major K. K V., 152, 159, 161
Catholics, 217, 224, 304, 305
Chafee, Jr, Zechariah, 235
Chamber of Commerce, N. Y. State, 27, 31,
260
Chamber of Commerce, U. S., 9, 10, 11, 12,
27, 37, 39, 46, 171, 194, 280
Chandler, Harry, 218
Chase National Bank, 59, 100, 176, 204, 254
Chicago Daily News, 59, 81, 145, 179
Chicago Herald-American, 144
Chicago Journal, 59
Chicago Sun, 131, 145, 224, 238
Chicago Times, 145
Chicago Tribune, 34, 37, 188, 266, 268
Childs, Marquis, 54
Christian Front, 199, 221
Christian Science Monitor, 145, 197
Chrysler Corp., 145, 279
Chrysler, Walter, 293
Churchill, Winston, 113
Churchman, The, 217
CIO, 13, 55, 122, 146, 214, 220, 238
CIO News, 95
Clark, Fied G., 220
Clark, John M., 235
Clark, Robert Sterling, 210, 288, 291
Clayton, W. L., 205, 293
308
INDEX
Cleveland Plain Dealer, 265
Close, Upton, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227
CofYee, John M, 143, 154
Colgate, S. Bayard, 274, 280
Collier’s, 60, 65, 68, 69, 88, 127, 136, 235
Columbians, 196, 228
Comm, for Constitutional Govt, 3, 48, 49,
126, 183, 212 ff.
Commission on Freedom of the Press, 55,
58, 231, 232, 235 ff ^
Communism, communists, 23, 83, 104, 106,
166, 201, 222, 226, 233, 242, 243, 248, 304
Conference of American Small Business Or¬
ganizations, 54
Congress, 50, 187
Connally, Sen. Torn, 147, 199
Consumers' Union, 220
Coolidgej^Calvin, 258
Cooper, Kent, 170
Cooperatives, 34, 237, 238
Copley, Col. Ira C., 185
Corporate interests, 1, 10, 24, 120, 256, 287
Cortesi family, 83
Cosmopolitan, 60, 106
Coudert, Jr , Frederic R , 206
Coughlin, Charles E., 198, 199, 201, 226,
299
Cowles, Gardner, 110, 133
Cox, Rep. E., 149
Crawford, Kenneth, 65
Crowell Publishing Co , 63, 69, 87
Crusaders, 61, 183, 197, 220, 292 ff
“Crusaders for American Liberalism," 68
Cudahy, John, 111
Curran, Edw. Lodge, 221
Curtis Publishing Co , 47, 61, 63, 69, 270,
275
Curtiss-Wright, 149
D
Daily Mail, 83
Daily Worker, 23, 266
Davis, Dr Jerome, 123
Davis, John W., 190, 206, 209, 247, 258,
Davison, Henry P., 72, 73. 88, 180, 261,
271
DeMille, Cecil B , 224
Democracy, 12, 48, 126, 231, 239
Democrats, 56, 103, 228
Dennis, Lawrence, 93, 111, 220, 243
Denver Post, 149, 266
Desvernine, Raoul E., 204, 220
Dewey, Thomas E , 26, 183
Dies Committee; Dies, Martin, 101, 198,
199, 215, 221, 247
Dilling, Elizabeth, 221, 226, 227
Dillon Read & Co., 167
Dodd, Wm. E, 113
Doyle, Wm , 211
Drug World, 64
Duftus, Robert L , 86
Duke interests, 27, 30, 144, 251
duPont, Irenee, 155, 184, 294
duPont, Lammot, 41, 161, 180, 183, 184,
221, 224, 294
DuPonts, 41, 152 ff, 153, 161, 172, 174,
181, 182, 197, 201, 203, 205, 209, 216,
226, 251, 252, 266, 273, 275, 279, 285,
290, 293
E
Eastman, George, 218
Eastman Kodak, 279
Eastman, Max, 95
“Economic Concentration and World War
II," 170
Ecton, Zales, 22
Edison Electric Inst., 24
Editor & Publisher, 4, 47, 48, 58, 83, 135,
238
Edson, Peter, 54
Electric Bond and Share, 31
Ellis, Kenneth, 228
Emporia Gazette, 150
Epstein, Henry, 32
Erickson, Leif, 22^
Espionage, industrial, 274
F
“Facts and Fascism," 154
Fairchild, Lambert, 227
Falsehoods, 20, 22, 23, 63, 222, 237, 247,
Farish, W. F., 146
Farm Journal, 61
Farmers’ Union, IS, 19, 20, 238
Fascism, 6, 13. 76, 80. 81, 90, 93, 111, 113,
116, 118, 133, 153, 189, 193, 221, 243,
248, 290
Fascism (Army Talk 64), 299 ff.
Federal Council of Churches of Christ, 245
Federal Trade Commission, 4, 101, 237
Federated Press, 23, 48, 223
Fertig, Lawrence, 54
Field, Marshall, 238, 258
Fifield, Rev. James W., 201, 216
Filler, Louis, 58, 68
Firestone, Harvey, 72, 218
Fish, Hamilton, 189, 199
Flynn, John T , 223, 224, 225
Ford, 145, 212, 218, 251
Fortune, S7, 72
Franco, 119, 127, 137, 221, 229
Free Enterprise, 6, 11, 13, 61, 72, 78, 133,
142, 144, 160, 163, 166, 169, 171, 183,
216, 230, 243, 247
French, Paul Comly, 210, 289
Friends of Democracy, 224, 226
Fuller, Maj Gen. J. F. C., 133
Fuller, Walter D., 47, 61, 63, 96, 274
. G
Gallup Poll, 13, 243
Gannett, Frank E., 59, 126, 183, 213, 214,
227
Gannett Papers, 59
Gazette & Daily, 145
Gehman, Dr. Jesse Mercer, 131
General Electric Co , 27, 41, 252, 275
General Motors, 41, 145, 149, 154, 204, 205,
252. 279
Geneva Conference, 155
George, Sen Walter, 37
Giannini, A. P , 190
Giera (Peter Brenner), 161
Gilbert, Rodney (Heptisax), 34
Gill, Major A Cloyd, 203
Girdler, Thomas, 197, 280, 285
Goldsborough, Laird S, 118
Good Housekeeping, 60, 64, 99
Goodrich Co, 275
Goodyear Tire, 41, 204, 252
GOP, 23
Gray, Edw. D , 227
Green, Wm , 55
Guaranty Trust Co., 254
Guffey, Jos, 184
Guggenheim family, 201
Gurney, Sen. Chan, 184, 188, 233
H
Haake, Dr. Alfred P., 220
Hadden, Briton, 72
INDEX
809
Hammond, Ogden H , 229
Haney, Lewis H , 47
Hapgood, Norman, 199
Harcourt, Brace & Co , 85
Hargrove, Marion, 131
Harkness Family, 58, 72, 251
Harriman, E. Roland, 89
Harnman Family, 58, 72
Harriman, W, Averell, 89
Harriss, Robert R., 225, 226
Hart, Ed , 226
Hart, Merwm K., 126, 197, 221, 223, 224,
225, 228
Hartford, John, 251
Hartley, Rep. Fred A., 55
Hawkes, Sen. Albert, 37, 50, 295
Hayek, Friedrich, 34
Hayes, Edw. A , 225
Hearst, W. R , 47, 64, 99, 100, 106, 129,
144, 167, 172, 181, 199, 201, 203, 204,
218, 249, 266, 271, 299
Heptisax (Rodney Gilbert), 34
Hill, Sen Lister, 35
Hitler, 77. Ill, 118, 137, ISO, 152, 160,
194, 195, 202
Hocking, Wm. E., 235
Hofer & Co , 28, 29
Hoffman, Rep. (Jlare, 197
Hoke, Henry, 197
Hohfield, Rep. Chet, 182
Hook, Charles R., 279, 285
Hoover, Herbert. 25, 152 ff, 218
Howard, Roy, 5, 108, 167, 199, 204, 226,
249
Howe, Quincy, 119, 134, 138
Huberman, Leo, 128
Hughes, Charles Evans, 68, 177
Hutchins, Robert, 235
Hutton, E. F., 53, 205, 227, 295
I
Ickes, L. Harold, 147, 235
I. G. Farben, 152, 153, 161, 163 ff.
Imperial Chemicals, 152, 153, 164
Industrial News Review, 28
In Fact, 92, 94, 104, 125, 131, 134, 153,
169, 183, 190, 213, 223, 238
Ingersoll, Ralph, 119
Ingles, William, 56
International Harvester Co., 41, 251, 252
International News Service, 107, 170, 264
International Power & Paper Co , 59
Investment Bankers Ass’n, 10, 167
Irving Trust Co , 41, 252
Iserman, Theodore R., 56
J
Jackson, Robert H , 48, 126, 199
Jacoby, Annalee, 116
Jefferson, Thomas, 234
Jewish War Veterans, 217
Jews, 222, 292, 304, 305
Jones, Mark, 56
Justice, Dept, of, 166
K
Kaltenborn, Hans von, 221
Kelly, John Loghan, 221
Kelly, Ray, 225
Kent, A Atwater, 202, 295
Khaki Shirts, 196, 213
Kilgore, Sen Harley, 165
King, Jerome. 125
King, Willford I., 49, 213
Kiwanis, 49, 51
Knickerbocker Press, 59
Knight, John S., 167, 271
Knudsen, Wm. S., 206, 296
Kress, S. H , 251
Knvitsky, Walter, 123
Kuhn, Loeb & Co, 167, 172, 173
Ku Klux Klan, 37, 199, 202, 214
L
Labor, 49, 104, 123, 169, 214
Labor, labor uniot s. 3, 8 11, 99, 104, 138,
187, 200, 212, 215, 219, 238, 304
Ladies’ Home Journal, 60, 64, 69, 95
La Follette Committees, Sen. La Follette.
2, 9, 26, 28 31, 40 206, 260, 283
T Tnib^rt Ph. rmacal Co , 65, 101
Lninont, Corliss, 'lO
Lament, Thomas W . 30, 69, 71, 76, 79, 80,
81 ff , 137, 21.1, 259 ?60
Langfi, Sill W'ni., 26, 30, 254
Lai sen, Roy, 63
Laswell, Harold D . 23j
Lauteibach, Richard, l!b
Lawrence, David, 36, 50, 54, 65
Lee, Ivy, 166
Lehman, Herbert, 162
Lewis, John L , 27, 34, 105
Lewis, Jr , Fulton, 45, 221
Lezvistozvn Democrat-News, 24
Liberty, 128
Lije, 53, 72, 110, 111, 243
Lihenthal, David, 233
Lincoln, Abraham, 247
Lincoln, Alexander, 202
Lindbergh, Charles A , 126, 239, 258
Lippmann, Walter, 89, 90, 117
Lloyd, Demarest, 206
Lobbies, 2, 7, 27, 32, 35, 62, 202, 234, 278,
292
Lockett, A K , 59, 88, 89
Long, Iluey, 200
Look, no, 133
Los Angeles Examiner, 47
Los Angeles Times, 218, 266
Louisville Courier-Journal, 265
Luce, Clare Boothe, 119
Luce, Henry R, 63, 72, 110, 112, 120, 137,
243
Lund, Robert, 101, 206, 223, 279, 280, 285
Lynch, David, 6
Lyons, Eugene, 107, 126
Me
McCall’s, 61, 98
AIcCann-Enckson, Inc, 146, 149
McClure, Samuel S, 213, 214
McCormack-Dickstem Comm, 79, 208 ff.,
287 ff
McCormick, Col. R. R., 185, 199, 224, 225,
272
McFec, Wm, 125
McGowan, Lord H , 161
McGraw-Hill, 61, 63, 89
McKellar, Sen. Kenneth, 37, 233
M
MacArthur, Gen. Douglas, 210, 211, 289
Macdonald, Dwight, 137
Macfadden, Bernarr, 128
MacGuire, Gerald G , 210, 287, 289, 291
MacLeish, Archibald, 235
MacNider, Hanford, 210, 289
Magazines, 17, 57 ff.
Marcantonio, Rep. Vito, 143
Marcosson, Isaac F , 82
Mather, Kirtley, 244
310
INDEX
Matthews, J. B., 101, 124
“M-Day,’‘ 84
MeJIctt, Lowell, 184, 189
Mellon interests, 26, 143, 144, 174, 180,
181, 185, 205, 296, 251, 258
“Merchants of death,152 ff., 157, 201, 242
Merriam, Charles E., 236
Merz, Charles, 117
Mexico, 128, 136
Mickclson, Gunnar, 19
Millis, Walter, 70, 75, 77, 84
Mitsui, 153, 154
Mohawk-Hudson Power Co , 59
Money in Elections, 23, 154, 156, 162, 163,
176 ff.
Monograph 26, 7ff, 61, 65, 131, 141
Monograph 29, 185. 251
Monopoly Investigation, 1, 2, 7, 169
Montana, 14 ff.
Montana Power Co., 16 ff.
Moral Re-Armament, 217
Morgan & Co , J. P., 2, 24; —and St. Law¬
rence Seaway, 25 ff.; 30, 38, 58, 59, 67 ff.,
69, 72, 73, 91, 98, 134, 166 ff , 172, 173,
176, 177, 201, 205, 213, 255, 259, 264
Morgan, Jerry, 56
Morgan Junius S., 180, 260
Morgan “Preferred List,” 86, 87, 258
Morgan, Stanley & Co , 166, 167
Moseley. Gen. Van Horn, 126, 197
Muckrakers, 67, 71, 172
Muir, Malcolm, 61, 63, 89
Mundt, Rep. Karl, 184, 188, 233
Munitions Investigation, 152 ff., 266
Murphy, Grayson M.-P., 206, 210, 287
Murray, Philip. 13, 55, 92, 193
Murray, Sen. J. E., 15 ff., 26, 35, 36, 169,
171
Muse, Vance, 202
Mussolini, 42, 77, 81, 111, 117, 133, 137,
195
MVA, 19, 23
N
Nashvillt Banner, 220
Nathan Report, 55
Nation, The, 6, 37, 85, 88, 96, 133, 134,
148, 222
National Association of Manufacturer*, 2,
8, 9, 11, 12, 39 ff., 45 ff.. 58, 91, V6, 101,
120, 128, 171, 183, 184, 186, 194, 198,
215, 227, 233. 240, 273, 276, 278 ff.
National City Bank, 254
National Council of Teachers of English, 92
National Economic Council, 205, 221, 222,
223, 227, 294
National Industnal Council, 10
National Maritime Union, 127, 198
National Publishers Association, 61, 65, 96
National Security League, 200
Nation’s Business, The, 63
Nazis, 94, 106, 111, 121, 160, 163, 223
NC.PA.C., 183, 223
N C W C., 8, 245
NEA, 65
Negroes, 202, 203, 215, 304, 305
NELA, 60
New Deal, 13, 62, 146, 150, 179, 196, 202,
204, 231, 239-41
New Republic, The, 78, 116, 117, 133, 188,
203, 264
Newspaper Guild, 62
Newspapers, Montana, 18-19, 23
Newspapers—worst, 266
News, suppressed, 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 15, 19, 26,
32, 40, 53, 66, 75, 79, 101, 140, 144, 233,
241
Newsweek, 61, 88, 89, 132, 135, 136
Neylan, John F., 181
Niagara Falls Power Co., 32, 33
Niagara Hudson, 28
NICB, 48
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 236
NIIC, 50. 185, 215, 220, 285
Norris, Geo., 75
Norris, Sen. George, 30, 254
NPA, 61, 62, 64
Nye, Gerald, 76, 85, 152, 199
Nye-Vandenberg Comm., 10, 74, 78, 140,
264
N.Y. Daily News, 39, 144
N.Y. Evening Post, 83
N.Y. Herald Tribune, 34, 35, 39, 52, 144,
149, 233, 257, 265, 266, 268, 283
N.Y. Journal-American, 76
N.Y. Post, 13, 27, 78, 79, 123, 169, 203,
207, 210, 264
N.Y. Sun, 34, 87, 149
N.Y. Times, 32, 34, 35, 47, 48, 52, 54.
76, 83, 85, 124, 135, 140, 144, 145. 147,
149, 169, 198, 222, 224, 227, 245, 282
N.Y. World, 176
N.Y. World-Telegram, 34, 35, 144, 148, 265
O
O'Daniel, Sen. Lee, 37, 229
Odium, jFloyd, 128
Oil, 128, 136, 242
O’Mahoney, Sen. Jos., 7, 146, 147
OPA, 49, 240
Oursler, Fulton, 128
Overacker, Louise, 163
Overton, Sen. John, 36
Owsley, Alvin, 195
P
Page Cable, 263-4
Page, Walter Hines, 74, 263
Palmer, Paul, 93
Parker, Alton B , 176
Patent Medicines, 69
Pathfinder, The, 54, 61, 228
Patman, Rep. Wright, 212, 213, 226
Patterson, Joseph Medill, 38, 199, 272
Peale, Dr. Norman Vincent, 213
Pearson, Drew, 184, 190
Pegler, Westbrook, 127, 146, 221, 228
People’s Voice, 18, 23
Perkins, Fred, 51
Pettengill, Samuel, 49, 213, 214, 223, 224,
Pew Family, 45. 54, 61, 179, 181, 182, 184,
185, 197, 202, 205, 213, 223, 224, 226,
227, 251, 297
Philadelphia Bulletin, 34, 144, 267
Philadelphia Inquirer, 144, 266
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 267
Philadelphia Record. 79, 144, 210, 266. 289
Phillips, Wendell, 246
Pitcairn Family, 182, 202, 205, 251, 297
Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 275
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 34
Pittsburgh Press, 265
FAf, 37, 52. 101, 121, 127, 133, 139, 144,
145, 148, 169, 215, 238
Pope Pius XII, 113
Prentis, Jr., H. W , 48, 26, 197, 221
Press Chains, 271
Press, corrupt, 4, 23, 28, 60, 69, 238, 286
Press Falsehood, 85
Press, passim
Progressive Citizens of America, 242
Proprietary Medicine Ass’n, 64, 66. 69
Proskauer, Jos. M., 206
INDEX
311
Public Opinion, 9, 23, 28, 46, 80, 88, 89,
no, 135, 143, 167, 244
Public Relations, 39, 141, 166
Pure Food & Drug Bill, 63, 64, 65, 131.
237
Q
Queeny Family, 182, 273
R
Radio, 45 ff. 99. 222, 269, 277
Railroad Trainmen, Brotherhood, 55, 238
Raleigh, Ben, 268
Rand. John H , 221
Rankin, Rep. John, 197, 2lS, 247, 299
Raskob, John J, 178, 202, 206, 226, 227,
258, 297
Raushenbush, Stephen, 267
Reaction, 13, 51, 72, 90, 95, 120, 193 ff..
219, 244, 248
Reaction, subsidizers of, 292
Reader^s Digest, 34. 91, 92, 93, 128, 134,
Red-baiting, 22. 23, 64, 83. 119, 132, 198,
202, 247, 304
Rcdbook, 61
Redfield. Robert, 236
Reece, B C, 23, S3
Regnery, Wm. H, 226
Reid, Whitelaw, 38
Remington Rand Inc., 275
Republic Steel, 275, 279
Republicans, 53, 56, 177, 179, 224, 228
Reynolds, R J, 251
Richter, Irving, 52
Roach, Hal E , 206
Robb, Arthur, 83
Roberts, Kenneth L , 83
Robey, Dr. Ralph, 133
Rochester Newspapers, 33
Rockefeller Family, 68, 140, 166, 172, 173,
180, 182, 201, 205, 251
Rogge, O John, 94, 111, 208, 223
Roosevelt, Eleanor, 202 ^ »
Roosevelt, F D , 4. 5, 13, 25, 28, 46, 142,
146, 178, 179, 181, 202, 204, 248, 262
Roosevelt, Nicholas, 202, 297
Roosevelt, Theodore, 67, 176, 177
Rucker, Allen W., 220
Ruling Families, 6, 251
Rumely, Frank A , 213, 227
Ruml, Beardsley, 236
Russell, Sen. Richard, 234
Russia, 104, 108, 114, 117, 122, 136, 143,
201
Ryerson, Jr., Edw. L., 179, 181
S
Sabath, Rep. Adolph, 197
Salazar, 83
Salvemini, G., 82
San Francisco Chronicle, 148
Sargent, Porter, 70, 90
Saturday Evening Post, 47, 60, 82, 120, 129,
130, 136
Saturday Review of Literature, 83
Scanlon, Patrick F , 222
Schlesinger, Arthur M., 236
Scripps-Howard papers, 4, 34, S3, 125, 148,
172, 224, 226, 266, 271
Sedgewick, Ellery, 136
Segal, Eugene, 224
Selvage, James P., 277, 281, 282
Sentinels of the Republic, 61, 154, 183,
185, 197, 200, 202, 292 ff.
Shapley, Dr. Harlow, 242
Shipler, Dr. Guy Emery, 217
Shirer, Wm. L., 95
Shiskin Boris, 6
Shreveport Times, 34
Shuster, George N., 236
Simons, Col Aiken, 156, 157, 159
Sinclair, Upton, 16, 135, 235
Six Star Service, 286
Sloan, Jr. Alfred P, 41, 54, 154, 163, 180,
181, 182, 185, 205, 221, 258, 297
Smith, Alfred E., 28, 162, 178, 206, 211
Smith, G L K., 21, 22, 196, 199, 200, 203,
220, 222, 224, 226, 227
Smith, Rep. Howard, 53, 199
Snow, John B , 221
Soeialistg, Socialism, 29, 68, 89, 90, 106,
146, 160, 166, 248
Society of Sentinels, 49
Sokolsky, Geo. E., 101, 130, 220, 222, 282,
283, 286
Soule, George, 203
South Dakota election, 2, 154, 183 ff., 233
Space & Time, 146
Spahr, Dr. Walter E., 206
Spam, 201, 221
Special Conference Comm»ttee, 40, 252
Spellman, Cardinal, 106, 127
Spiritual Mobilization, 216
Spivak, Lawrence E , 93, 126
Spofford, Wm , 217
Springfield Union, 34
Stahlman, James G , 220
Standard Oil, 41, 68, 137, 139, 143, 147,
148, 177, 204, 212, 251, 252
Stark, Louis, 48, 53
Stars & Stripes, 94
State Dept, 152, 156
Steele, Walter S , 198
Stem, Rose, 84
Stern, J. David, 210
Stewart, Kenntth, 133
Stewart, Milton, 58
St. Lawrence Seaway, 4, 25 ff,, 59, 259, 260
St. Louis Glohc-Democrat, 265
St. Louts PosUDispatch, 145, 167, 176, 190,
197
Stokes, Thomas L., 52
Stolberg, Benjamin, 123
Stone, I. F, 149
Strawn, Silas, 180, 258
Strikes, 11, 12, 99, 105
Sullivan, Mark, 52, 54, 69, 221
Sulzberger, Arthur H., 85, 298
Sunoco, 61
Sun Oil Co., 275
Survey, 82
Swint, Wendell R , 160
Synagogue Council, 245
Syracuse Newspapers, 33
T
Taft-Hartley Bill, 40, 55, 189, 241, 253
Taft, Senator Robert A., 37, 54, 55
Tampa Tribune, 59
Taylor, Col Wm. N., 161
Taylor, Henry J., 45, 82, 125, 221
Taylor, Myron C., 258
Teagle, W C , 147
Thomas, Ixiwell, 45
Thomas, Sen. Elbert D., 40, 253
Tide, 91, 109
Time, 21, 57, 72, 116, 134, 140, 147, 209,
270
TNEC, 66, 168
Tool Owners. Union, 51, 194, 204, 219, 220,
221
312
Treason of Bij Business, 139, 140, 143,
144, 147, 149
Truman Committee, 139
Truman, Harry S., 11, 19, 26, 103, 144,
145, 242, 248
Tugwell, Rex, 63, 64
Tulsa Trtbune, 34
TVA, 19, 34
U
U A W ; CIO, 52
Un American Committee, 189, 209, 247
“Under Cover,” 222
United Nations, 244
United Press, 51, 108, 131, 144, 170, 204,
264
United States News, 36, 65
U S Cartridge Co , 149
U S Rubber Co, 41, 252
U S Steel Corp, 41, 204, 238, 252, 279
Utilities, 4, 29, 59, 186, 205
V
Vandenberg, Sen Arthur, 158
Vanderbilt FamiW, 201
Vick Chemical Co , 65
Viereck, George Sylvester, 129, 189
Villard, O G , 16, 18
von Wiegand, Karl, 112
W
Wagner Act, 10, 12, 22, 40, 42, 45 ff, 47,
63, 128, 160, 179, 222, 280
Wallace, DeWitt, 92, 93, 134
Wallace, Henry A , 65, 188, 193, 242, 248
Wall St, 24, 68, 72, 79, 80, 132, 166, 171,
175, 211, 212, 217, 243, 254
Wall Street Journal, 34, 188
Ward, Paul, 178
War fraud, 17, 19, 140, 149
INDEX
Warner, William B . 61, 63, 98, 274, 280
Washington Evening Star, 149
Washington Herald, 267
Washington Post, 266
Wason, Robert, 227
Watson, Morris, 47
Watts, Jr, Richard, 116
Weir, Ernest T, 179, 181, 197, 205, 224,
226, 273, 298
Westinghouse Electric, 41, 252, 279
Weston, Chas K , 266
“What Makes Lives,” 70
Wheeler, Burton K . 2, 37, 199
Wherry, Sen Kenneth S , 37
White, Wm Allen, 90, 150
White, Theodore H , 116
Whitney, A F, 55
Wiggin, Albert H , 59
Williams, Aubrey, 188, 239
Williams, Whiting, 220
Williams, Wythe, 267
Willkie, Wendell, 181
Wilson, Woodrow, 74, 265
Winchell, Walter, 133 214
Winrod, Gerald B , 216
Witness, The, 217
Wohlforth, Robert, 40
Wolfe, Humbert, 135
Woman's Home Companion, 65, 97
Wood, Robert E, 223, 224, 225
Woodward, William E , 77
World War I, 10, 75, 80, 85, 263 4, 265
World War IT, 11, 140
World War III, 113, 231, 242
Y
Young, Owen D , 59
Young & Rubicam, 101
Z
Zellers, John A , 227
5rR smRFT
L,B.S. National Academy of Administration, Library
MUSSOORIE \0~\O !■'
^tPth I I
This book is to be returned on the date last stamped
f??TT«F
Date
Borrower’s
No.
Date
Borrower’s
No.
320.973
Sel
I
Class No
ACC No .
?t.
Book No .
Author. Salc^ea^ .G. .
5ft»T^Fr
Title thousand Americas.
^Ul ^
Date of Issue
Borrower’s No.
Signature
320.97J LIBRARY
LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI
National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE
Accession No. I 6^ ^
1. Books are issued for 15 days only but
may have to be recalled earlier if urgen¬
tly required.
2. An over-due charge of 25 Raise per day per
volume will be charged.
3. Books may be renewed on request, at the
discretion of the Librarian.
4. Periodicals, Rare and Reference books may
not be issued and may be consulted only
in the Library.
6. Books lost, defaced or injured In any way
shall have to be replaced or its double
price shall be paid by the borrower.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11